Wikipedia + Gattaca + Plagiarism = Rand Paul

Let's not beat around the bush here (no, especially not around Dubya) - Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is a strange guy. With that Chia Pet-like hair of his, he appears to some as a mad scientist, but to me he just looks plain mad. Paul didn't diminish this odd image of his any with the speech he gave yesterday at a rally in support of Virginia gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli. His speech centered around the '90s science-fiction film Gattaca and as pointed out by MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, it appears as if Mr. Paul may have taken the film's description directly from Wikipedia. Here are a few of the highlights (or lowlights):

Paul: "In the movie Gattaca--inthe not-too-distant future, eugenics is common. And DNA plays a primary role in determining your social class."

Wikipedia: "In the not-too-distant future, liberal eugenics is common and DNA plays the primary role in determining social class."

Paul: "Due to frequent screenings, Vincent faces genetic discrimination and prejudice. The only way to achieve his dream of being an astronaut is he has to become what's called a 'borrowed ladder.'"

Wikipedia: "Due to frequent screenings, Vincent faces genetic discrimination and prejudice. The only way he can achieve his dream of becoming an astronaut is to become a 'borrowed ladder.'"

Paul: "He assumes the identity of a Jerome Marrow, a world-class swimming star who's genetic profile is said to be 'second to none,' but he's been paralyzed in a car accident..."

Wikipedia: "He assumes the identity of Jerome Eugene Marrow, a former swimming star with a genetic profile 'second to none,' who had been injured in a car accident..."

Paul: "Jerome 'buys' his identity, uses his DNA-his blood, his hair, his tissue, his urine-to pass the screening."

Wikipedia: "Vincent 'buys' Jerome's identity and uses his 'valid' DNA in blood, hair, tissue, and urine samples to pass screening."

Sorry Rand, but it appears as if you got busted. Yeah, when asked who the three most influential people in his life were, Paul unhesitatingly answered, "Jesus, Ayn Rand, and Wikipedia." If Senator Paul runs for president, debates may have to be lengthened in order to give him time to research Wikipedia before answering questions.

Moderator: "Senator Paul, you've been an outspoken opponent of the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare, as some have called it. If you become president, what will you do to improve our healthcare system?"

Paul: "Could you give me one moment? I have to look something up on my phone here. It'll just take me a minute. Let me put on my glasses. If you see me continuing to look up and down when answering the question, don't worry, I'm not actually reading directly from Wikipedia or anything."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/10/29/rand_paul_gattaca_did_rachel_maddow_catch_rand_paul_plagiarizing_wikipedia.html?wpisrc=burger_bar

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"

The Kind-Hearted Smart Aleck

Search This Blog