Are stories about Palin's clothes newsworthy or sexist?

I try to keep my mouth shut on political issues because journalists must remain objective. But I can't let this one go.

It was big news earlier this week that the Republican National Committee went on a $150,000 spending spree for VP candidate Sarah Palin's campaign wardrobe. Today, the news continued with reports that the highest-paid campaign staffer for the ticket is Palin's make-up artist.

The question I have to ask -- besides, holy crap, how I can get a gig like that -- is whether this is truly newsworthy or just one more example of the sexism that still exists in our country?

Admittedly, I am put off by the amount of money the RNC spent on her wardrobe. I think it could be a reflection of whether the McCain-Palin ticket is truly in touch with the issues facing average Americans today.

When I look at the foreclosure signs in my own neighborhood, I have to wonder how those families feel about a candidate who allowed her "handlers" to drop more money on her clothes that some Americans pay for their homes (at least in my part of the world).

However, as a woman, I'm pissed off at the attention this issue is getting. It stinks of double-standard and reminds me that no matter what a woman achieves in life, she will always be judged on her appearance. If she had walked out onto that convention stage in a Wal-Mart suit, she would have been judged for it. Instead, she walked out looking like a million bucks in a Saks Fifth Avenue suit that cost damn-near that much, and she was judged for it.

I'm sick of hearing legitimate political pundits discuss whether Sarah Palin is on the ticket only because she's hot. I don't hear anyone debating whether Barack Obama's super-rise to stardom is due to the fact that he's downright dreamy when he smiles. (Oh, um... not that I think that or anything. I mean, um, blushing here.)

The point is, there is more than enough about Sarah Palin to give us pause about her readiness to be the proverbial heartbeat away from the president. Can we please focus on that and forget about her clothes?

It's still plagiarism

UPDATE: Haven't posted in a while. Been really busy, which is a good thing. And I'm happy to report that my novel, WHATEVER IT TAKES, has taken first place in two contests!

OK, today's topic: The supposed fine line between plagiarism and not. I say supposed because there is no fine line. You either steal someone else's work or you do your own. Period.

What prompted today's topic: I belong to a couple of online services where freelancers can find writing jobs. Lately, I'm seeing a disturbing trend -- people or companies posting jobs in which they want writers to simply rewrite someone else's work for their own use.

This is from an anonymous job posting today on Guru.com... "What I need is someone who can re-write the information in these pamphlets without plagiarizing the information."

Um... no. That's pretty much the very definition of plagiarizing. Using someone else's work and pawning it off as your own, even if you've reworked it so it looks different on the page, is still an act of plagiarism. (If you're using someone else's work for research, then cite the work. Give credit where credit is due.)

Not to jump on the I-just-don't-understand-these-whippersnappers-today bandwagon, but I do worry that it has become so easy to access information thanks to the Internet that there is an entire generation of people who don't understand the basic rules of fair use.

Let me help you out: If the original words are not yours, and you use them for your own purpose, then you've committed plagiarism.

It's as simple as that.