The blogosphere afire today with a story about a Cleveland Plain Dealer article accusing Democrat Sherrod Brown, who is challenging Ohio Senator Mike DeWine, of plagiarizing a post on Nathan Newman's blog detailing the anti-worker decisions of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

Nathan denies that he was a victim. The real victims, in fact are "the workers denied minimum wage, family leave, or a day in court to challenge racial and gender discrimination because of Alito's decisions? "

In fact, he emphasizes, he (and the rest of us bloggers) want nothing more than progressive politicians to pick up our stuff.

DeWine just cracked a joke about not knowing to whom to respond -- Brown or Newman.

And Nathan, who was on his honeymoon when all this erupted had this to say:

So DeWine thinks workers having their paychecks stolen by employers is a joke?

DeWine thinks union workers being denied the freedom to form unions is a joke?

DeWine thinks racial discrimination is a joke?

That's the story the reporter should have concentrated on.

Who the hell cares if a Brown staffer copied a factual listing of legal cases into a letter? This was hardly a literary blog post using deathless prose for the ages. It was the facts that made this post interesting, not its literary value. But in typical manner, the response of the media is to ignore the substance and focus on some stupid "he said, she said" story.

As for me, if any politicians out there are thinking of plagiarizing my stuff -- GO FOR IT. (and a little attribution wouldn't be bad either.)