A couple more plagiarism examples discovered:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57611411/more-plagiarism-accusations-against-sen-rand-paul/
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Thursday, November 7, 2013
The unlimited entertainment value of our junior senator
In some ways I hate to pick on Rand Paul, but he's such a great and deserving target. The evolving plagiarism blow up is so fitting for him. He has few, if any, original thoughts, most ideas seem to be from his dad and Ayn Rand (his current namesake?) and the fact that he has wholesale copied so much without attribution to the original authors perhaps should be expected.
But as surprising as the amount of plagiarism is his response to being outed. He hints that he wants to fight Rachael Maddow in a duel, calls people that call him out "haters and hacks" and offers that he would have flunked the people who uncovered the lifted portions of speeches and writings if he was their journalism professor. But for what?
When you copy someone else's work you attribute it. Rand acts like its some kind of revelation, but its not at all. In a writing, you double indent and single space to show the reader that you are quoting other's work, and in a speech you would say something like, "I'd like to read a portion from a recent article by....." and at the end you say something like, "end of quote."
I don't know if his indignation is sincere, and, if so, he's a total moron, or if he just wants to shoot the messenger, in which case he's a hot headed Little Lord Fauntleroy. I just love his sense of outrage! Oh, my honor has been insulted!
I read somewhere recently where plagiarism is a blend of theft, fraud and subterfuge. Several character defects all rolled into one.
Anyway, he's sure to provide much more entertainment in the future.
Here's a NYT article on the story:
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/rand-pauls-plagiarism/?ref=opinion
But as surprising as the amount of plagiarism is his response to being outed. He hints that he wants to fight Rachael Maddow in a duel, calls people that call him out "haters and hacks" and offers that he would have flunked the people who uncovered the lifted portions of speeches and writings if he was their journalism professor. But for what?
When you copy someone else's work you attribute it. Rand acts like its some kind of revelation, but its not at all. In a writing, you double indent and single space to show the reader that you are quoting other's work, and in a speech you would say something like, "I'd like to read a portion from a recent article by....." and at the end you say something like, "end of quote."
I don't know if his indignation is sincere, and, if so, he's a total moron, or if he just wants to shoot the messenger, in which case he's a hot headed Little Lord Fauntleroy. I just love his sense of outrage! Oh, my honor has been insulted!
I read somewhere recently where plagiarism is a blend of theft, fraud and subterfuge. Several character defects all rolled into one.
Anyway, he's sure to provide much more entertainment in the future.
Here's a NYT article on the story:
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/rand-pauls-plagiarism/?ref=opinion
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Dang the timing!
After taking off a couple of months I was going to do a short essay on reasonable gun control, but now, with the shooting at the Naval Ship Yard in Washington D.C., the NRA says any discussion of that now would be using a tragedy to score political points!
If we can just go for 6 months or so without a mass killing, maybe it would be ok to discuss it then?
If we can just go for 6 months or so without a mass killing, maybe it would be ok to discuss it then?
Monday, May 20, 2013
HOT DAMN!!! Rand Paul knows a conspiracy when he sees it!!!
Well, actually he doesn't need to see it to know it. From Talking Points Memo:
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) claimed Sunday that the Internal Revenue Service had a "written policy" that said agency officials were "targeting people who were opposed to the president."
"And when that comes forward, we need to know who wrote the policy and who approved the policy," Paul told CNN.
When CNN anchor Candy Crowley pressed Paul for details, the junior Kentucky senator revealed that he had only heard about the memo.
"Well, we keep hearing the reports and we have several specifically worded items saying who was being targeted. In fact, one of the bullet points says those who are critical of the president," Paul said. "So I don't know if that comes from a policy, but that's what's being reported in the press and reported orally. I haven't seen a policy statement, but I think we need to see that."
Doing Kentucky proud, every day.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) claimed Sunday that the Internal Revenue Service had a "written policy" that said agency officials were "targeting people who were opposed to the president."
"And when that comes forward, we need to know who wrote the policy and who approved the policy," Paul told CNN.
When CNN anchor Candy Crowley pressed Paul for details, the junior Kentucky senator revealed that he had only heard about the memo.
"Well, we keep hearing the reports and we have several specifically worded items saying who was being targeted. In fact, one of the bullet points says those who are critical of the president," Paul said. "So I don't know if that comes from a policy, but that's what's being reported in the press and reported orally. I haven't seen a policy statement, but I think we need to see that."
Doing Kentucky proud, every day.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Captain Codpiece's 10 year anniversary!!!
from hullabaloo:
It's hard to believe that it 10 years ago today that the whole country sat slack jawed in front of ther TVs at the sight of their president prancing around the deck of an aircraft carrier in his sexy flightsuit. Women were swooning, manly GOP men were commenting enviously on his package.
But there were none so awestruck by the sheer, testosterone glory of Bush's codpiece as Tweety. I reprise this every year in his honor:
Yes, that was the level of "analysis" we endured during that time. It makes John King and Wolf Blitzer screwing up the Boston bombing arrest story look pretty tame don't you think?
A Cod-piece can fool them all
Make them think you're large
Even if you're small
Just be sure you don't fool yourself
For it's still just imagination
And to be sure it works like a lure
And will raise a wench's expectations
But have a care you have something there
Or the night will end in frustration
Happy Codpiece Day Everyone
by digby
It's hard to believe that it 10 years ago today that the whole country sat slack jawed in front of ther TVs at the sight of their president prancing around the deck of an aircraft carrier in his sexy flightsuit. Women were swooning, manly GOP men were commenting enviously on his package.
But there were none so awestruck by the sheer, testosterone glory of Bush's codpiece as Tweety. I reprise this every year in his honor:
MATTHEWS: Let's go to this sub--what happened to this week, which was to me was astounding as a student of politics, like all of us. Lights, camera, action. This week the president landed the best photo op in a very long time. Other great visuals: Ronald Reagan at the D-Day cemetery in Normandy, Bill Clinton on horseback in Wyoming. Nothing compared to this, I've got to say.
Katty, for visual, the president of the United States arriving in an F-18, looking like he flew it in himself. The GIs, the women on--onboard that ship loved this guy.
Ms. KAY: He looked great. Look, I'm not a Bush man. I mean, he doesn't do it for me personally, especially not when he's in a suit, but he arrived there...
MATTHEWS: No one would call you a Bush man, by the way.
Ms. KAY: ...he arrived there in his flight suit, in a jumpsuit. He should wear that all the time. Why doesn't he do all his campaign speeches in that jumpsuit? He just looks so great.
MATTHEWS: I want him to wa--I want to see him debate somebody like John Kerry or Lieberman or somebody wearing that jumpsuit.
Mr. DOBBS: Well, it was just--I can't think of any, any stunt by the White House--and I'll call it a stunt--that has come close. I mean, this is not only a home run; the ball is still flying out beyond the park.
MATTHEWS: Well, you know what, it was like throwing that strike in Yankee Stadium a while back after 9/11. It's not a stunt if it works and it's real. And I felt the faces of those guys--I thought most of our guys were looking up like they were looking at Bob Hope and John Wayne combined on that ship.
Mr. GIGOT: The reason it works is because of--the reason it works is because Bush looks authentic and he felt that he--you could feel the connection with the troops. He looked like he was sincere. People trust him. That's what he has going for him.
MATTHEWS: Fareed, you're watching that from--say you were over in the Middle East watching the president of the United States on this humongous aircraft carrier. It looks like it could take down Syria just one boat, right, and the president of the United States is pointing a finger and saying, `You people with the weapons of mass destruction, you people backing terrorism, look out. We're coming.' Do you think that picture mattered over there?
Mr. ZAKARIA: Oh yeah. Look, this is a part of the war where we have not--we've allowed a lot of states to do some very nasty stuff, traffic with nasty people and nasty material, and I think it's time to tell them, you know what, `You're going to be held accountable for this.'
MATTHEWS: Well, it was a powerful statement and picture as well.
Yes, that was the level of "analysis" we endured during that time. It makes John King and Wolf Blitzer screwing up the Boston bombing arrest story look pretty tame don't you think?
Make them think you're large
Even if you're small
Just be sure you don't fool yourself
For it's still just imagination
And to be sure it works like a lure
And will raise a wench's expectations
But have a care you have something there
Or the night will end in frustration
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Are Boston marathoners now props?
Continuing on the theme from yesterday about Obama using the Newtown shooting victims as "props" according to Rand Paul, our esteemed Senator sent this to Harry Reid:
Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today urged him to reconsider immigration legislation because of the bombings in Boston. “The facts emerging in the Boston Marathon bombing have exposed a weakness in our current system,” Paul writes. “If we don’t use this debate as an opportunity to fix flaws in our current system, flaws made even more evident last week, then we will not be doing our jobs.”
I hate to point out that some might think that Rand Paul is using the tragedy in Boston for some kind of political gain. You'd think someone who could hold these two thoughts simultaneously without seeing the logical conflict would be suffering from some kind of cognitive dissonance, or maybe not.
Little Lord Fauntleroy strikes again.
Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today urged him to reconsider immigration legislation because of the bombings in Boston. “The facts emerging in the Boston Marathon bombing have exposed a weakness in our current system,” Paul writes. “If we don’t use this debate as an opportunity to fix flaws in our current system, flaws made even more evident last week, then we will not be doing our jobs.”
I hate to point out that some might think that Rand Paul is using the tragedy in Boston for some kind of political gain. You'd think someone who could hold these two thoughts simultaneously without seeing the logical conflict would be suffering from some kind of cognitive dissonance, or maybe not.
Little Lord Fauntleroy strikes again.
Monday, April 22, 2013
More thoughts on our shameful Senate.
I'm still dumbfounded by that Senate action last week (see previous post) where it failed to get the 60 votes necessary to get the full Senate to vote on something sensible, yet watered down, like expanded background checks. This is an idea supported by 90 percent of the general population, yet it can't even get a vote?
We need to be asking some serious questions of our representatives, such as, "who do you think you are working for?"
An expanded background check wouldn't have caused any conflict with the second amendment, but the NRA has gone rabid in its protection of gun manufacturers, and there simply isn't any rational argument that can be made for the NRA's position. None.
One argument which is always suggested is something like, "Universal background checks won't stop all of the mass shootings," which is tantamount to saying, "We oppose anything unless its cures everything."
Also troubling are the lies and shifting positions of the anti-gun controllers. First is the argument that we should never take an action while some mass shooting is still fresh in the collective mind, because that's using a tragedy for a political gain. Really? Was that argument made after the Hindenburg fiasco and the decision that hydrogen was too risky for dirigible use? Or after the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire where the use of aluminum wires was questioned? No, somehow we must wait for some unknowable amount of time after a mass shooting to be able to discuss ways to address the problem. The problem is that that moment never arrives, there's always another shooting which interrupts the cool-down period.
Also, any time "gun control" is mentioned, the NRA answers that it is "gun elimination" that is really being suggested and the second amendment has already decided that question. I notice that our esteemed Mitt McConnell and Rand Paul are already posting that lie on internet ads.
In short, it is still impossible to rationally discuss anything that hints of gun control in our society. Too much reactionary BS to even get the issue on the table.
We need to be asking some serious questions of our representatives, such as, "who do you think you are working for?"
An expanded background check wouldn't have caused any conflict with the second amendment, but the NRA has gone rabid in its protection of gun manufacturers, and there simply isn't any rational argument that can be made for the NRA's position. None.
One argument which is always suggested is something like, "Universal background checks won't stop all of the mass shootings," which is tantamount to saying, "We oppose anything unless its cures everything."
Also troubling are the lies and shifting positions of the anti-gun controllers. First is the argument that we should never take an action while some mass shooting is still fresh in the collective mind, because that's using a tragedy for a political gain. Really? Was that argument made after the Hindenburg fiasco and the decision that hydrogen was too risky for dirigible use? Or after the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire where the use of aluminum wires was questioned? No, somehow we must wait for some unknowable amount of time after a mass shooting to be able to discuss ways to address the problem. The problem is that that moment never arrives, there's always another shooting which interrupts the cool-down period.
Also, any time "gun control" is mentioned, the NRA answers that it is "gun elimination" that is really being suggested and the second amendment has already decided that question. I notice that our esteemed Mitt McConnell and Rand Paul are already posting that lie on internet ads.
In short, it is still impossible to rationally discuss anything that hints of gun control in our society. Too much reactionary BS to even get the issue on the table.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Cowards and Traitors
I got one of those crazy ass right wing emails about the Senate voting down the U.N. treaty on international gun trafficking. As you know, it was all about the U.N. taking our guns away, under the guise of rational limitations on the sale of weapons across borders. The email denounced the treaty and included the names of Senators who voted in favor of the treaty, and it called them "traitors" and demanded they be replaced at the next election.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the treaty specifically stated that it could not be interpreted as in any way as limiting 2nd amendment rights. It didn't need to include that language, because any treaty cannot limit a constitutional right.
The inclusion of the clarifying language didn't fool the gun nuts, though. They staged an active campaign to defeat the treaty, and it worked. By not ratifying the treaty, the U.S. joined the esteemed company of Iran, Syria and North Korea in voting it down.
Because of the strong NRA push to defeat the treaty, I think the Senators who voted for the treaty showed some backbone, something we don't see often in Washington.
Similarly, the NRA campaign to defeat the closing of the background check loopholes by falsely claiming it would create a national registry of guns and would outlaw the transfer of a gun between brothers-in-law worked. The senate today defeated the provision which would have required a background check at gun shows, etc. The hold of the NRA over Washington is absolutely amazing. And the Senators who voted against the provision, parroting the NRA lies about the law, are cowards of the first order.
The fact that lies are peddled in some wholesale manner to the public, and the fact that the public cannot recognize it as such is dumbfounding. Far too many people cannot think for themselves, instead, relying on their own paranoid fantasies and Fox news to give them the information that they are so hungry for.
Validate me, please.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the treaty specifically stated that it could not be interpreted as in any way as limiting 2nd amendment rights. It didn't need to include that language, because any treaty cannot limit a constitutional right.
The inclusion of the clarifying language didn't fool the gun nuts, though. They staged an active campaign to defeat the treaty, and it worked. By not ratifying the treaty, the U.S. joined the esteemed company of Iran, Syria and North Korea in voting it down.
Because of the strong NRA push to defeat the treaty, I think the Senators who voted for the treaty showed some backbone, something we don't see often in Washington.
Similarly, the NRA campaign to defeat the closing of the background check loopholes by falsely claiming it would create a national registry of guns and would outlaw the transfer of a gun between brothers-in-law worked. The senate today defeated the provision which would have required a background check at gun shows, etc. The hold of the NRA over Washington is absolutely amazing. And the Senators who voted against the provision, parroting the NRA lies about the law, are cowards of the first order.
The fact that lies are peddled in some wholesale manner to the public, and the fact that the public cannot recognize it as such is dumbfounding. Far too many people cannot think for themselves, instead, relying on their own paranoid fantasies and Fox news to give them the information that they are so hungry for.
Validate me, please.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Its Back to Hostage Taking, Again!
WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) laid down a tough
requirement for raising the debt ceiling Thursday, all but ensuring a
reprise of the tense standoff two years ago that saw America's credit
rating downgraded.
Speaking at his regular news conference, Boehner said the only way the House would go along with raising the country's borrowing cap was if President Barack Obama and the Democrats came up with an equal amount in budget cuts.
"Dollar for dollar is the plan," Boehner told reporters, adding that there have been no major talks on the debt limit at this point.
"The president has been clear that he's not going to address our entitlement crisis unless we're willing to raise taxes. I think the tax issue has been resolved," said Boehner. "So at this point then, I don't know how we're going to go forward."
Those Republicans are such fun people! When you think about how insane this is, its almost funny. OK, so here's the situation: The current Repub mantra is, "we don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem." So, in order to cut our spending, the Repubs are again planning to take the country to the brink of default to get their way. Last time they did this, the credit rating of the US dropped, making it more expensive to borrow money and therefore causing us more to service our debt?
You see how that works? Well, they apparently don't.
Speaking at his regular news conference, Boehner said the only way the House would go along with raising the country's borrowing cap was if President Barack Obama and the Democrats came up with an equal amount in budget cuts.
"Dollar for dollar is the plan," Boehner told reporters, adding that there have been no major talks on the debt limit at this point.
"The president has been clear that he's not going to address our entitlement crisis unless we're willing to raise taxes. I think the tax issue has been resolved," said Boehner. "So at this point then, I don't know how we're going to go forward."
Those Republicans are such fun people! When you think about how insane this is, its almost funny. OK, so here's the situation: The current Repub mantra is, "we don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem." So, in order to cut our spending, the Repubs are again planning to take the country to the brink of default to get their way. Last time they did this, the credit rating of the US dropped, making it more expensive to borrow money and therefore causing us more to service our debt?
You see how that works? Well, they apparently don't.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
WE DEMAND SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT!!!
Signing up for Facebook has been a real eye-opener for me. I once had no idea who it was that got their world view from Fox News, now I have a much better idea.
A high school reunion took place not long ago and I was swamped with requests from people I hadn't heard from in ages and I blindly accepted most. Now I see some of the pay-off from the Koch brothers sponsorship of obscure net posters with slick messages with no real thought behind them.
I don't see how these right wingers can continually get their panties in a wad over any obscure idea without suffering from some kind of outrage fatigue.
A few weeks ago some law professor wrote an oped piece for the New York Times which advocated scrapping the Constitution in favor of some kind of British parliamentarian system. Days later I heard him being interviewed on NPR.
Yesterday a couple of conservative FB friends reposted a slick "demand" that the professor be fired for suggesting the Constitution be scrapped. THE NERVE!!!
I posted a comment under it something like, "I'm trying to figure out how the petition should be worded? The undersigned loves the U.S. Constitution so much that we demand the firing of the man who exercised his first amendment rights under that Constitution."
The posting was removed by this morning. Piers Morgan MUST be deported because the second amendment outweighs the first!!! That's why they put it in there secon......., wait a minute............
A high school reunion took place not long ago and I was swamped with requests from people I hadn't heard from in ages and I blindly accepted most. Now I see some of the pay-off from the Koch brothers sponsorship of obscure net posters with slick messages with no real thought behind them.
I don't see how these right wingers can continually get their panties in a wad over any obscure idea without suffering from some kind of outrage fatigue.
A few weeks ago some law professor wrote an oped piece for the New York Times which advocated scrapping the Constitution in favor of some kind of British parliamentarian system. Days later I heard him being interviewed on NPR.
Yesterday a couple of conservative FB friends reposted a slick "demand" that the professor be fired for suggesting the Constitution be scrapped. THE NERVE!!!
I posted a comment under it something like, "I'm trying to figure out how the petition should be worded? The undersigned loves the U.S. Constitution so much that we demand the firing of the man who exercised his first amendment rights under that Constitution."
The posting was removed by this morning. Piers Morgan MUST be deported because the second amendment outweighs the first!!! That's why they put it in there secon......., wait a minute............
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)