This is Rand Paul we’re talking about. We should be offering him support for not using his own ideas.
Could be worse. He could have done like the Canadian PM and plagiarize another politician’s speech.
Technically it is, since he also did not attribute it to be the writing of a third party. Barring an explicit attribution like that, when you make a speech, you do imply to your audience that what you’re saying is either your own writing, or the writing of someone on your staff, who wrote it specifically for you to deliver (and for which you’re taking responsibility, since you’re the one saying it).
So, legalized abortion is the summit of a slippery slope to near-universal human genetic engineering and discrimination against the unengineered minority. Thank you, Senator Paul. I have no doubt Ayn Rand would have agreed. :rolleyes:
In retrospect I think we made a huge mistake not electing Cain. We could’ve had a Pokemon master in the White House and free pizza for all Americans.
I disagree. I think most people are aware of and accept the idea that politicians deliver speeches that other people wrote for them. The speech is basically a statement that they advocate the principles expressed in the speech not that they created them.
You missed my point, I think.
Absolutely, most people, if they give it a moment’s thought, would recognize that politicians have speechwriters. Those speechwriters are explicitly employed by the politicians, and are specifically hired to write speeches which the politician (and / or his staff) have vetted for content.
Even if the listener can’t assume that the speaker is using words he wrote himself, the listener should be able to safely assume that the words were crafted by the speaker’s staff, under his (direct or indirect) supervision. Even if the speaker didn’t write the speech himself, it represents, in essence, an original work, attributed to the speaker, because he’s the one who’s publicly delivering the words.
But, when a speaker delivers a speech that lifts someone else’s writing (and, by “someone else”, we’re talking, here, about someone who (a) does not work for the speaker, and (b) did not write the words with the intent that they would be used by the speaker), but does not properly attribute the source of that writing, it is plagarism. In this case, as has already been noted, it seems to be a sign of lazy speechwriting, lax editing and controls, and / or an overt willingness to take liberties with someone else’s creative work. None of those are particularly complimentary attributes.
Presumably he attributes the configuration of the dead animal pelt on his scalp to demonic intervention.
I see that you take your definition of the term “research” from the great Lobachevsky.
He uses long passages of words that someone else wrote without their permission and without attribution. That’s plagiarism, full stop. It’s not malicious so much as it’s lazy. It’s not right, but it’s not the end of the world, either–more of an occasion for pointing and laughing than condemnation.
It shouldn’t distract from the bigger issue–that the point he was making was bugshit, pants-on-head, Tom Cruise crazy.
Gotta disagree.
When I was in candidate school we were specifically warned about this. That anything we delivered in a speech was considered our words and ours alone. Even if a speechwriter put it together for us we were presumed to have ownership of it. So quoting anything without attribution was a no-no and we should avoid it.
I understand it’s plagiarism. But it’s not like Paul had ever claimed he wrote the speech or that anyone had expected him to write his own speech. Paul paid somebody else to write a speech for him and that person plagiarized wikipedia. Depending on your sympathies you can see this as Paul being the victim of an unethical employee or that Paul is a poor supervisor who doesn’t promote good ethics in his staff. But let’s face facts; Paul himself wasn’t copying wikipedia.
It’s amazing how often these sentences have been written since 2008.
That’s probably the most likely scenario (and, that “somebody else” actually did it on at least two separate occasions).
Probably true in the most literal sense, but, as Jonathan Chains notes, when you’re a politician giving speeches, you take ownership of the words you speak, even if someone else wrote them.
And, as Bob’s Zombie noted earlier, if Rand chooses to rely on the excuse of “my employee wrote that, not me”, it begins to sound a heckuva lot like the newsletters which were written under his father Ron’s name, but which his father disavowed when they came to light during his presidential bids.
It sounds to me like you are mistaken in what you thought Paul did. Let’s be clear, Paul didn’t research a wiki article in order to quote facts about something he didn’t know about. He pulled, practically word for word (including the source’s quotations), a flowerly description of the movie and pretended as if it was his own words. He used the exact adjectives to describe the movie as whoever wrote it. Now, does Paul think Jerome Morrow’s DNA is “second to none”? Cause he said it, so Rand Paul must believe that, right? Its not like he’s just reading someone else’s words, right?
And the revelation that Rand Paul’s (former, now!) director of communications and co-author was a white supremacist who hosted a radio show as a Confederate flag-mask-wearing character called The Southern Avenger. It’s weird how this keeps happening.
I found a documentary about Rand’s grandfather — jump to 3:20.
Update: Rand Paul has indicated that he did, indeed, give credit in the speech he gave on Monday, in which he quoted the Wikipedia entry on the movie Gattaca. However, the credit he says he gave wasn’t to Wikipedia:
Huffington Post story: Rand Paul Addresses Plagiarism Claims: 'I Gave Credit' | HuffPost Latest News
Eh, he’s weaseling to avoid the plagiarism issue. But he’s three years away from re-election. By the time he’s thinking of running for President his team will have a good deflection in place. What nailed Biden was a combination of slow information transmittal (no Internet) and his stumbling on the reply.
Toss in that it doesn’t look like it’ll do Cuccinelli and harm (he’s looking to lose big anyway) and this will be one with history by next Tuesday.
First, he did not do that. Second, fine point to where those words were written by the screenwriters of Gattaca.
What a weaselly dodge! And lame as hell, to boot. That’s like me stealing zut’s synopsis of The Amazing Race, and then saying after the fact that it’s okay because I said “The Amazing Race” at some point.