But instead of confronting one of the most profound issues that an advanced technological society will face in the years and decades ahead, smaller minds and those of limited imagination are focusing on whether or not the legislator's remarks were rhetorically footnoted with all of the punctuation put in the right place.
Those with too much time on their hands unable to substantially refute the Senator's remarks, such as Rachel Maddow, are claiming that he plagiarized his summary of the film Gattica from Wikipedia.
If truck drivers and hog farmers rather than academics and journalists were the ones that got all worked up over plagiarism, would this linguistic oversight be considered all that much of an outrage?
Snobs siding with Maddow flippantly query what does Gattica have to do with a political campaign stop.
After all, that distracts from much more important work such as the legalization of gay marriage and the distribution of subsidized birth control.
However, will these libertines keep singing the same tune when a test is developed possibly determining whether or not someone might be inclined towards the particular variety of temptation of which Rachel Maddow is herself afflicted as evidenced by her mannish appearance?
Perhaps Senator Paul should have been more careful in observing the protocols of scholastic attribution.
But isn't this response to his remarks akin to dismissing someone warning against the dangers of the looming Final Solution because the analyst in question forget to mention what review of Mein Kampf was being quoted from?
by Frederick Meekins
No comments:
Post a Comment