Keep in mind this is the guy who self-certified his opthamology qualifications ~ ~ Sooz

AlterNet / By Jodie Gummow
Caught Again! Rand Paul Is Plagiarizing Full Wikipedia Articles in his Speeches
Rachel Maddow: "When you're running for President, a plagiarism scandal is not something you want on your resume, especially not one as embarrassing as plagiarism from Wikipedia!"

October 30, 2013 | Last night on The Rachel Maddow Show, the savvy talk show host revealed another Rand Paul speech that is identical to Wikipedia entries – this time from the 1988 movie "Stand and Deliver."

Earlier in the week, Maddow had accused the Kentucky senator of ripping off large passages of Wikipedia articles and using them in speeches as if it they were his own words.

Specifically, Maddow unveiled that the speech he gave at Liberty University in Virginia in which he referenced the movie "Gattaca" was almost verbatim from sections of the movie entry:


Maddow expressed her disdain:

"When you’re running for President, a plagiarism scandal is not something you want on your resume, especially not one as embarrassing as plagiarism from Wikipedia, repeatedly. This wasn’t an isolated incident, this is a repeat thing."

Maddow says Senator Paul has remained mum on the issue and cannot be reached for comment.

Watch the embarrassing spectacle: [Sooz says video accessible via end link]

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/caught-again-rand-paul-plagiarizing-full-wikipedia-articles-his-speeches

this is really sorta amazing, for someone who thinks he should be taken seriously.

Is self-certification a way to certify self-abuse?

Hmmm ... no contest: Maddow over Paul in a heartbeat ~ Sooz

Maddow: I’m not so sure Rand Paul even knows what the word ‘plagiarism’ means
By David Ferguson
Thursday, October 31, 2013 9:09 EDT

Monday night on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show,” host Rachel Maddow fired back at Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), whose response to the growing plagiarism hubbub around his speeches was to accuse Maddow — not by name — of “spreading hate” about him.

“Two clear-cut cases of plagiarism from a sitting U.S. Senator,” Maddow marveled. “In two pretty high-profile speeches.”

Paul isn’t just any senator, though, she continued, he’s a senator who wants to run for president. A plagiarism scandal is, or at least ought to be, a real liability for a presidential candidate.

For two days, Paul’s office kept mum on the charges, but then on Wednesday, Paul said in an interview with Fusion Network anchor Jorge Ramos, “The person who’s leading this attack, she’s been spreading hate on me for three years now, and I don’t intend for it to go away. But I also don’t see her as an objective news source.”

The interesting thing about the exchange, Maddow noted, is that Paul honestly doesn’t seem to have a firm mental grasp on what plagiarism is.

“Nothing I said was not given attribution to where it came from,” Paul insisted, saying that by mentioning “Gattica,” he was giving “the screenwriters” credit. The screenwriters, however, didn’t write the Wikipedia entry, and at no point during his speeches did Paul acknowledge that he was quoting the online encyclopedia.

“Senator, you can call me whatever names you want to,” Maddow said on Wednesday. “Trust me, I’ve been called worse. But this is not a personal thing for me at all. I feel no emotion about this and I do not ‘hate’ you, nor have I tried to ‘spread hate’ on you, and I’m sorry you feel that way.”

“But,” she went on, “you didn’t ‘borrow plot-lines’ from these movies. You read the Wikipedia page out loud. The point is that you appear to have a frequent habit of plagiarizing your speeches, and perhaps that is explained by the fact that you don’t understand what ‘plagiarism’ means.”

“This is about you lifting other people’s words verbatim and pretending that they are your own,” said Maddow. “This is about you lifting entire sections of a website, inserting them into your own speeches and then passing them off as your own original thoughts. This is something high school students know not to do. And you are presenting yourself as a potential candidate for president.”

Watch the video, embedded below via MSNBC: [Sooz says video accessible via end link]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/31/maddow-im-not-so-sure-rand-paul-even-knows-what-the-word-plagiarism-means/

Does Rand Paul remind anyone else of a spoiled, bratty child? ~ ~ Sooz

Rand Paul to be ‘more cautious’ in wake of plagiarism scandal
11/01/13 09:29 AM
By Steve Benen

Earlier this week, The Rachel Maddow Show found evidence of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) lifting several sentences from a Wikipedia entry and including the lines in a speech without attribution. As most of us are taught in middle school, when someone takes others’ work and presents it as their own, it falls under the category of “plagiarism” – which in national politics, can be problematic.

Soon after, BuzzFeed found another instance in which the Republican senator presented text from a Wikipedia entry as his own original text. And then The Rachel Maddow Show found yet another instance of Rand Paul plagiarism.

Though Paul talked with several national reporters this week, none chose to ask him about these clear, documented, demonstrable examples of Paul presenting others’ work as his own. To his credit, Fusion TV’s Jorge Ramos asked the Kentucky senator to explain himself on Wednesday, and Paul offered a multi-part defense.

Paul said, for example, that when he used others’ work in describing movies without attribution, it wasn’t plagiarism because he didn’t take credit for writing the movies. Paul also said the issue relates to missing “footnotes” that he apparently considered part of his written remarks. He added that Rachel Maddow is a “hater,” which he apparently considers a relevant part of his defense.

In other words, Paul either doesn’t know what “plagiarism” means or he’s pretending not to know what “plagiarism” means. As an objective matter, it has to be one or the other.

Last night, however, Politico found even more examples of Paul presenting language from others in his speeches without attribution – at which point, the senator’s office apparently decided the “hater” defense was no longer sufficient.


In this case, Politico found instances in which Paul lifted text from an Associated Press article and an article published in a Focus on the Family magazine. Neither was credited in the senator’s remarks.

Presented with five documented instances in which Paul’s speeches featured others’ work, Paul adviser Doug Stafford complained about “liberal media angst” – I’m not sure what that means in his context – before saying the senator will “be more cautious in presenting and attributing sources” in the future.

The funny thing is that if Paul and his team simply acknowledged the error, blamed sloppy staff work, and pledged to be “more cautious” going forward, the story probably would have faded rather quickly. But instead, the Kentucky Republican, despite being caught clearly presenting others’ work as his own, tried to redefine “plagiarism” and rely on name-calling as a way to justify his misdeeds. These are the kind of actions that would get a high school student into fairly serious trouble, but which a U.S. senator apparently feels entitled to.

What a shame.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/paul-be-more-cautious-plagiarism

The only place I see Rand Paul as succeeding is being is prez of his own fan club ~ ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Maddow to Rand Paul: ‘Good luck’ trying to make this plagiarism thing about me
By David Ferguson
Saturday, November 2, 2013 11:54 EST

Friday night on “The Rachel Maddow Show,” host Rachel Maddow addressed accusations planted by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)’s office that she is a plagiarist. She also pointed out even more instances in which Paul stole large chunks of his speeches from other people’s writing.

She began by hearkening back to the point in the 2012 campaign when former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) took on Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) as his running mate. Ryan is and was famous for submitting budget after budget that seeks to ultimately do away with Medicare.

Rather than risk becoming the guy who wants to end Medicare, Romney attacked President Barack Obama, claiming that the Affordable Care Act actually seeks to end Medicare.

“In politics, this is a classic,” Maddow said. “When you’re getting attacked for something, just accuse your opponent of being guilty of the same thing. Whatever the attack is, if it’s sticking to you, just apply those words in a substantively meaningless way to whoever’s saying it about you, so at least it starts to seem confusing to people or the words lose their meaning.”

A conservative blog has been chosen from the masses to carry water for Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on charges that the tea party senator has repeatedly stolen parts of his speeches from other writers. Representatives of Paul’s office contacted the blog alleging that Maddow was once accused of plagiarizing a blog post.

“Sure, Senator,” said Maddow. “Sure, ‘sources close to Rand Paul,’ you can try to make this whole problem for yourself about me, try to make me the story? Good luck. I can take it.”

There are a lot more people, however, who have noted the problem Sen. Paul seems to have writing his own speeches, which, Maddow said to the senator, “You still haven’t owned up to, you still haven’t apologized for and you still haven’t said you will fix.”

In addition to the Buzzfeed article that pointed out what Maddow noted on Monday, now Politico has found even more instances of Paul plagiarizing in his speeches, once from the AP and once from the anti-LGBT group Focus on the Family.

Paul has since pledged to be “more cautious” in attributing sources for other people’s work.

“This is called running from your mistakes,” Maddow said. “The story has gone from bad to worse for Sen. Paul. I think because he basically refused to take responsibility for what he did.”

Watch the video, embedded below via MSNBC: [Sooz says video accessible via end link]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/02/maddow-to-rand-paul-good-luck-trying-to-make-this-plagiarism-thing-about-me/

Paul has since pledged to be “more cautious” in attributing sources for other people’s work.

If he did nothing wrong why would he have to be "more cautious"?

And what good is "footnoting" in an oral speech? ~

Sooz

Well, if his foot is in his mouth...

Dueling? ~ seriously??? ~ he likely cheats at that, too ~ but at least this confirms that his "belief" in "personal responsibility" only applies to others ~ and does anyone understand his quote below? ~ ~ Sooz

Rand Paul: ‘If dueling were legal in Kentucky…’
11/04/13 08:00 AM
By Steve Benen

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) ran into some trouble last week when The Rachel Maddow Show, BuzzFeed, and Politico uncovered several instances in which the senator delivered public remarks presenting others’ work as his own. The Kentucky Republican’s original response suggested he wasn’t sure what “plagiarism” means.

The story has taken several twists and turns since, including Paul’s Senate office starting to make it harder to get the text of the senator’s speeches. Andrew Kaczynski advanced the story on Saturday, discovering that Paul’s 2013 book “borrowed” several hundred words of text from other sources, including reports from the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. Kaczynski reported, “Paul included a link to the Heritage case study in the book’s footnotes, though he made no effort to indicate that not just the source, but the words themselves, had been taken from Heritage.” On the Cato portions, “The text was once again cited in the footnotes but the words were passed off as Sen. Paul’s.”

Paul talked to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos yesterday, who asked about the controversy. The entire transcript of the interview is online here, but to briefly summarize, the senator complained about “the footnote police,” complained some more about “the standard” he’s being held to, and added this rather striking conclusion:


Moments later, Paul added, “I think I’m being unfairly targeted by a bunch of hacks and haters.”

There seems to be some ongoing confusion on the senator’s part about the nature of the controversy, which may be causing him to lose his cool. Perhaps I can help by highlighting the basics:

1. Rand Paul presented others’ work as his own several times.

2. Rand Paul got caught.

3. Rand Paul has not yet explained how or why he presented others’ work as his own.

I’m at a loss as to why this is proving to be so difficult for the senator. The issue shouldn’t have anything to do with his personal feelings towards those who uncovered his missteps. Whether or not he’d like to shoot – or shoot at – journalists who uncovered his wrongdoing shouldn’t matter, either.

As for Paul complaining about the “standard” he’s “going to be held to,” the sitting U.S. senator is facing the same scrutiny routinely applied to 14 year olds, who’ve been taught that copying and pasting text from Wikipedia without attribution is a big no-no.

What is it, specifically, that Rand Paul considers “unfair”?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/paul-if-dueling-were-legal-kentucky

i think they are misusing this term, too. the correct term is ATTRIBUTING. you know- like telling people whose stuff you are lifting?

If Paul had simply said, "Oops. Sorry", this thread wouldn't even exist.

Agreed ~ and if "they" don't understand the difference, then it's more likely that Rachel was absolutely/positively correct when she speculated that Rand Paul doesn't understand the definition of "plagiarism" ~

Sooz

Exactly, oskar ~ maybe he's a believer that any attention is better than being ignored ~

Sooz

I read something that expands Steve Benen's "... aides started making it more difficult to access Paul's speeches ..." comment below that said his aides were scrubbing his website ~ I'll try to find that again ~ hopefully Rand Paul's total mishandling of this will serve as a disqualifier to his future "plans" ~ ~ Sooz

Rand Paul caught once again
11/05/13 08:45 AM
By Steve Benen

After Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was caught presenting others’ work as his own by The Rachel Maddow Show, BuzzFeed, and Politico, the senator’s office seemed to realize Paul had a problem on his hands. It reached the point late Friday that the senator’s aides started making it more difficult to access Paul’s speeches, perhaps fearful more evidence would come to light.

Unfortunately for the senator, it’s too late to hide op-eds Paul has already written and published. Andrew Kaczynski reported last night:


As the controversy has grown over the last week, Paul has done his best to change the subject, complaining about those who’ve noticed him presenting others’ work as his own, trying to redefine words like “plagiarism” and “footnotes,” and complaining that he’s being held to an unreasonable “standard.”

The senator’s pushback hasn’t helped, in part because it’s unpersuasive, and in part because it’s unrelated to the issue at hand.

One assumes Paul will be more careful going forward, but over the last three years, he’s given lots of speeches, written plenty of op-eds, and even published a couple of books. And if the last week is any indication, the closer one looks at the senator’s body of work, the more evidence emerges that Paul has an ugly habit he’s refused to acknowledge or apologize for.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/rand-paul-caught-once-again

Here's where I read the "scrubbing" comments ~ for me, the only one "... casting aspersions on [his] character" is he himself ~ where's that personal responsibility he's always demanding from others? ~ ~ Sooz

Rand Paul caught scrubbing transcripts from website after plagiarism charges
By David Edwards
Monday, November 4, 2013 15:58 EST

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has been accused of plagiarizing Wikipedia and other sources and the evidence has started disappearing from his official Senate website.

MSNBC Rachel Maddow recently noticed that Paul had taken the exact language from several Wikipedia pages and used it in several of his speeches without proper attribution. And over the weekend, BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski found that Paul had copied 1,318 words from a 2003 case study by the Heritage Foundation without making it clear that he had not authored the material.

On Monday, Kaczynski pointed out that some of those speech transcripts had been scrubbed from Paul’s Senate web page.

In the case of a Feb. 6 speech to the Heritage Foundation, Paul’s current page only contains a video, but Google cache shows that the page recently also had the entire transcript.

BuzzFeed found at least three other pages which had transcripts deleted.

Speaking to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, Paul admitted that he had made mistakes in citing sources but lashed out at his critics, who he called “hacks and haters.”

“I will admit, sometimes we haven’t footnoted things properly,” the Kentucky Republican said. “I’ve written scientific papers. I know how to footnote things. But we’ve never footnoted speeches. And if that’s the standard I’m going to be held to, yes, we will change and we will footnote things.”

“But the difference is, I take it as an insult and I will not lie down and say people can call me dishonest, misleading or misrepresenting,” he added. “And like I say, if, you know, if dueling were legal in Kentucky, if they keep it up, you know, it would be a duel challenge. But I can’t do that, because I can’t hold office in Kentucky then.”

“I think I’m being unfairly targeted by a bunch of hacks and haters. And I’m just not going to put up with people casting aspersions on my character.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/04/rand-paul-caught-scrubbing-transcripts-from-website-after-plagiarism-charges/

Rand Paul, just like you and me and everyone else in the world, is responsible for consequences from his own actions ~ oskar's words above ring even more true now ~ instead of saying "oops, sorry" when this was first exposed, he's guaranteed this will become a "footnote" [pun INtended] in his C.V. from now until forever ~ and for someone so worried and protective of his own "character", he sure doesn't hesitate to malign others ~ ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Rand Paul, victim
11/06/13 03:15 PM
By Steve Benen

I’d more or less assumed that the controversy surrounding Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) habitually presenting others’ work as his own had run its course. The Republican senator got caught, he tried a variety of strange excuses, he made an odd comment about duels, and then Paul eventually conceded he and his staff “made mistakes” and would change their policies.

The capstone came last night when the conservative Washington Times, which ran one of Paul’s plagiarized pieces, said it would no longer publish a weekly column from the Kentucky lawmaker.

But instead of moving on, Paul has decided to portray himself as a victim. Robert Costa reports today:


It’s an odd approach. Paul presented others’ work as his own, on a wide variety of occasions, and in several types of media (speeches, op-eds, and books). He’s “annoyed,” not with himself for his persistent wrongdoing, but with those who pointed out his mistakes. Since he didn’t “intend” to plagiarize, Paul considers recent criticism unfounded.

What’s more, the senator said of journalists, “I’m being criticized for not having proper attribution, and yet they are able to write stuff that if I were their journalism teacher in college, I would fail them.”

It’s not clear who or what he’s referring to. Paul, who was a self-accredited ophthalmologist before getting elected to the Senate, has no background in journalism, and hasn’t pointed to any flaws in the reports that have highlighted instances in which he presented others’ work as his own.

Rather, it seems as if the senator is simply irritated by accurate reports about his own mistakes. Self-reflection can be difficult and awkward, and it appears Paul finds it easier to lash out at those who presented inconvenient truths about his record to the public.

The editorial board of the senator’s hometown paper, the Louisville Courier-Journal, seems to find Paul’s self-pity tiresome (thanks to my colleague Mike Yarvitz for the heads-up).


This is arguably Paul’s first meaningful test of adversity since getting elected in 2010, which offers a peek into his character and instincts as a politician. So far, it would appear the senator is struggling badly with this test.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/rand-paul-victim

He apparently doesn't know the definition of the word plagiarism. Was he home-schooled?

he is totally rattled by this.

you don't need to footnote speeches. you ATTRIBUTE them.

i used to think this guy was smart.

Amazing, innit?

Well, lets admit it, there is a fuzzy area around the notion of plagiarism, particularly when you are talking about speeches - less so with written work.

I think, in a purely technical sense, we have probably all been guilty of it at one stage or other simply because we pick up ideas but don't always remember were we got them from. That can be true of whole sentences as well. So, for example, I have used the sentence "the search for certainty is the road to madness" on a number of different occasions, and I'm honestly not sure whether I made it up or picked it up somewhere (its possibly from Karl Popper, but it would take me forever to find that out).

There's also a fuzzy area around correct and incorrect attribution. Very often people get it wrong. So, for example, Charles Darwin did NOT come up with the phrase "the survival of the fittest", Einstein did NOT come up with the sentence "I could only see so far because I stood on the shoulder of giants" and, while I have always thought "The world will only be free when the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest" came from Bakunin, now I'm not so sure.

And then there's those ideas and expression that have become part of the general culture. They are so common that any kind of attribution is kind of redundant at best. No doubt someone originally said "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink", but is it really necessary to find out who? The truth is, if we gave full attribution to every phrase or notion which we picked up from somewhere else then all we'd ever write is footnotes - including footnotes to the footnotes, and so on ad infinitum.

So the issue isn't whether or not someone has used other people's words or ideas, its HOW they are used. For me intention is a key issue. If there is a clear intention to deceive then you have full blown plagiarism. I have run across severe cases on a number of occasions and it is not a nice feeling, particularly when it comes from someone you have hitherto trusted.

But plagiarism can be a product of intellectual laziness or simply a lack of respect for others. I suspect this is the case with Rand. My impression is that ideas and even the expression of those ideas for such people are simply resources to be used for whatever purposes they have. "Attribution" in such cases is simply seen as irrelevant. The resource is there, you can use it, and so you do. Where it came from simply isn't a matter for concern. That other people are involved is neither here nor there. That's why, in a sense, he can't really see what the fuss is all about.

Both forms of plagiarism are contemptible. One is the morality of the thief, the other is, ultimately, the morality of the egocentric sociopath.

To sum up.
Rand Paul=Ayn Rand.

Paul certainly doesn't handle criticism very well.

Nice post, CM ~ I agree with much of it ~ but I think you might be being too generous with Rand Paul by your "we've all done it" comment ~ I agree most, if not all, of us "adopt" ideas from others that appeal to us ~ but most, if not all, of us do NOT repeat word-for-word long concepts or explanations ~

I do NOT believe for a nanosecond that RPaul does his own writing ~ he has a full senatorial staff ~ but [and it's a BIG "but"], he is responsible for what he says publicly and for what is published under his name ~ I have one of my near-famous "hazy recollections" that dear-old-dad was accused of the same thing a few years ago ~ so maybe it's another "inherited trait" ~

Sooz

Which is an apt explanation for him self-certifying his ophthalmology credentials ~

Sooz

I think we have all done it inadvertently sooz. Maybe I should have stressed that.

Rand is different. For him words and ideas are weapons. You grab whatever you can use and, since you have no real interest in the content of those ideas, then plagiarism is kind of meaningless.