Senator Rand Paul Plagiarized from Wikipedia

[SummerMadness]

What's your beef?

Rand Paul passed the American Board of Ophthalmology's certification process multiple times. He also attempted to start an alternative board for certification ... which board did not last. Kinda seems to me like rather than "skipping all that work" as you said, Rand Paul went above and beyond.

But rather than get recertified, he reformed his dissolved board with his family members in supervisory roles. The board was dissolved again. He could have simply gotten recertified or formed a legitimate organization. He did neither. I have no beef, I'm just pointing out his actions.

 

[Boondock_Saint]

Funny, I don't see this one dominating the news. My guess is that we will all forget about this one pretty quick.

 

[SummerMadness]

Funny, I don't see this one dominating the news. My guess is that we will all forget about this one pretty quick.

Well, according to some on this board, if something is not dominating the news, it's a media cover up. Perhaps I should claim that the lack of coverage points to right-wing bias hiding the truth.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Well, according to some on this board, if something is not dominating the news, it's a media cover up. Perhaps I should claim that the lack of coverage points to right-wing bias hiding the truth.

It seems worth mentioning that no one here is denying, or disputing, Rand Paul's actions in regard to the Ophthalmology boards. It's more a matter of curiosity as to exactly what you and others here are claiming was improper about those actions.

 

[SummerMadness]

It seems worth mentioning that no one here is denying, or disputing, Rand Paul's actions in regard to the Ophthalmology boards. It's more a matter of curiosity as to exactly what you and others here are claiming was improper about those actions.

It is always bad form to pick your family members for a board. It's a conflict of interest. On top of that, he could have simply been recertified, or gone through the process to create a board that isn't headed by his family members.

Would it seem proper for me to create a research society and then have my girlfriend and other family members as the board chairs? His wife is not even an ophthalmologist, yet she was VP?

I'm not saying stuff like this doesn't happen all the time, but I don't think it passes ethical muster. In our lab, we routinely discuss ethics, including situations like this in science.

 

[NightHawkeye]

It is always bad form to pick your family members for a board. It's a conflict of interest. On top of that, he could have simply been recertified, or gone through the process to create a board that isn't headed by his family members.

LOL ... I'll grant you that it seems a little silly in retrospect. Perhaps he still harbored hope for resurrecting the board as an alternative certification body.

Would it seem proper for me to create a research society and then have my girlfriend and other family members as the board chairs? His wife is not even an ophthalmologist, yet she was VP?

One does what one can when starting any organization. If it grows things improve, if not it disappears ... as seems to have happened here.

 

[SummerMadness]

LOL ... I'll grant you that it seems a little silly in retrospect. Perhaps he still harbored hope for resurrecting the board as an alternative certification body.

One does what one can when starting any organization. If it grows things improve, if not it disappears ... as seems to have happened here.

If I wanted to create an alternative certification body, I would try to get other ophthalmologists on board. Of course, the big problem is getting legitimate people from the field. Would I really jump ship because I don't like older board members getting grandfathered in? Wasn't that the big reason for creating a new board?

I think a similar problem is occurring in the scientific field with the explosion of open access journals and conferences. You get e-mails constantly inviting you to submit to no-name journals or attend no-name conferences. There have been several occasions where I was invited to give a "keynote address" at a conference unrelated to my research, by people that have absolutely no rank in their respective fields (they are always in India or China). But the goal is to have someone legitimate take part in their conference, and then advertising it in the future. I think of a board with your family members as no different than those conferences.

 

[NightHawkeye]

If I wanted to create an alternative certification body, I would try to get other ophthalmologists on board. Of course, the big problem is getting legitimate people from the field. Would I really jump ship because I don't like older board members getting grandfathered in? Wasn't that the big reason for creating a new board?

I think a similar problem is occurring in the scientific field with the explosion of open access journals and conferences. You get e-mails constantly inviting you to submit to no-name journals or attend no-name conferences. There have been several occasions where I was invited to give a "keynote address" at a conference unrelated to my research, by people that have absolutely no rank in their respective fields (they are always in India or China). But the goal is to have someone legitimate take part in their conference, and then advertising it in the future. I think of a board with your family members as no different than those conferences.

If accounts are to be believed then Rand Paul had a number of new ophthalmologists involved in the initial formation of his board. Who knows what their motivations were ... apparently they didn't remain involved and the organization lapsed due to inactivity. Rand Paul made one feeble attempt to revive it.

Just doesn't seem like anything to get overly excited about, either way.

 

[SummerMadness]

If accounts are to be believed then Rand Paul had a number of new ophthalmologists involved in the initial formation of his board. Who knows what their motivations were ... apparently they didn't remain involved and the organization lapsed due to inactivity. Rand Paul made one feeble attempt to revive it.

Just doesn't seem like anything to get overly excited about, either way.

Not really getting excited about it, it's just more evidence that he is not the most trustworthy guy. I guess that's why he got into politics.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Not really getting excited about it, it's just more evidence that he is not the most trustworthy guy. I guess that's why he got into politics.

LOL ... that could be.

But, I fail to see what was untrustworthy about attempting to form an alternative certification board. There were apparently a number of other individuals who felt the way Rand did at the time that board was formed.

Do you believe there should only be one credentialing body for any activity? If so, what would lead you to believe that a single such body, without the possibility of any competing activity, would tend to make the best decisions going forward?

 

[SummerMadness]

LOL ... that could be.

But, I fail to see what was untrustworthy about attempting to form an alternative certification board. There were apparently a number of other individuals who felt the way Rand did at the time that board was formed.

Do you believe there should only be one credentialing body for any activity? If so, what would lead you to believe that a single such body, without the possibility of any competing activity, would tend to make the best decisions going forward?

The first time around may have been legitimate. But the second time around, no. The second time, he formed the organization again, and did not get recertified with the original organization. The second time, it was a board with his family members in board positions. If he recertified or started an organization without his family members, then it wouldn't stink so much. But given the timing and the familial stacking, I don't think it stands up to scrutiny.

Does that mean I am against the idea of a competing board? No. But this was not really a competing board the second time around. At least, given the conflicts of interest, it doesn't appear legitimate.

 

[NightHawkeye]

The first time around may have been legitimate. But the second time around, no. The second time, he formed the organization again, and did not get recertified with the original organization. The second time, it was a board with his family members in board positions. If he recertified or started an organization without his family members, then it wouldn't stink so much. But given the timing and the familial stacking, I don't think it stands up to scrutiny.

Does that mean I am against the idea of a competing board? No. But this was not really a competing board the second time around. At least, given the conflicts of interest, it doesn't appear legitimate.

... and apparently the need for such a board didn't attract sufficient support for it to stay around. Case closed.

 

[SummerMadness]

... and apparently the need for such a board didn't attract sufficient support for it to stay around. Case closed.

Regardless of whether the organization failed or not, it is worth noting that it was stacked with family members of the person running it. That probably wouldn't attract too many new people.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Regardless of whether the organization failed or not, it is worth noting that it was stacked with family members of the person running it. That probably wouldn't attract too many new people.

Still, it made a statement ... which Rand Paul is apparently proud of. I think I would be, too.

 

[SummerMadness]

Still, it made a statement ... which Rand Paul is apparently proud of. I think I would be, too.

If you're going to make a statement do it once, else you end up with people scratching their heads when you make a new trilogy that doesn't hold a candle to the first one.

 

[SummerMadness]

Felt like pulling some thread necromancy here. Brian Williams commits an unethical act and should resign. Rand Paul commits an unethical act and the same people calling for his head are Rand Paul crusaders, rushing to his defense.

 

[MachZer0]

Felt like pulling some thread necromancy here. Brian Williams commits an unethical act and should resign. Rand Paul commits an unethical act and the same people calling for his head are Rand Paul crusaders, rushing to his defense.

and Paul was accused of committing an unethical act. Brian Williams told a bold faced lie about something he claimed happened to him. The ethics of Paul's acts are in question whereas there is no doubt about Williams

 

[Sistrin]

Oh, the GATTACA thing. I had to go back and look.

In any movie or film the events which take place are the events which take place. They don't change from one movie showing to the next. Therefore any two people writing about said movie are bound to use some of the same verbiage in describing what took place as the events being described do not change.

 

[SummerMadness]

Oh, the GATTACA thing. I had to go back and look.

In any movie or film the events which take place are the events which take place. They don't change from one movie showing to the next. Therefore any two people writing about said movie are bound to use some of the same verbiage in describing what took place as the events being described do not change.

Except that's not what happened, he copied the description. If he submitted this as a scientific paper, it would have been rejected due to plagiarism. The movie has been described many times and in many different ways, the only ones that have the same language are Wikipedia and Rand Paul. Your inconsistency on topics of journalistic integrity is noted.

 

[USincognito]

Oh, the GATTACA thing. I had to go back and look.

In any movie or film the events which take place are the events which take place. They don't change from one movie showing to the next. Therefore any two people writing about said movie are bound to use some of the same verbiage in describing what took place as the events being described do not change.

You should have read the whole thread because that was the apologia you were using back then and it was explained to you that is not all reflective of Sen. Paul's plagiarism.

There was also numerous other examples provided including this one:

He plagiarized, verbatim, nearly a paragraph of a movie review from Wikipedia. Big difference. But if you want to defend his malfeasance, good luck with that.

Especially since it's been revealed that he's done it more than once and in numerous different venues.

Here's his theft of intellectual property from The Week in the Washington Times:
Rand Paul faces another plagiarism claim - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com

Paul wrote in one section of his September piece:


"By design, mandatory-sentencing laws take discretion away from prosecutors and judges so as to impose harsh sentences, regardless of circumstances. Since mandatory sentencing began in the 1970s in response to a growing drug-and-crime epidemic, America’s prison population has quadrupled, to 2.4 million. America now jails a higher percentage of its citizens than any other country, including China and Iran, at the staggering cost of $80 billion a year. Drug offenders in the United States spend more time under the criminal justice system’s formal control than drug offenders anywhere else in the world.

“Most public officials — liberals, conservatives and libertarians — have decided that mandatory-minimum sentencing is unnecessary. At least 20 states, both red and blue, have reformed their mandatory-sentencing laws in some way, and Congress is considering a bipartisan bill that would do the same for federal crimes.”

That compares to editor Dan Stewart’s op-ed in The Week:


“By design, mandatory sentencing laws take discretion away from prosecutors and judges so as to impose harsh sentences, regardless of circumstances. Mandatory sentencing began in the 1970s as a response to a growing drug-and-crime epidemic, and over the decades has put hundreds of thousands of people behind bars for drug possession and sale, and other non-violent crimes. Since mandatory sentencing began, America’s prison population has quadrupled, to 2.4 million. America now jails a higher percentage of its citizens than any other country, including China and Iran, at the staggering cost of $80 billion a year.

“Most public officials — including liberals, conservatives, and libertarians — have decided that it’s not. At least 20 states, both red and blue, have reformed their mandatory sentencing laws in some way, and Congress is considering a bipartisan bill that would do the same for federal crimes.”​