Science, yes, plagiarism, no
If science won't find a cure for cancer, what will? If science won't find a cure for multiple sclerosis, what will? If science won't help you solve crimes faster, what will? You get the point.
I find it hard to tell if Sen. Rand Paul believes what he says or if he is playing to an ignorant minority political base that he can manipulate (he might think) to win elections.
In a democracy, the people, through their government, determine how funds are to be used. I would like to see more funds allocated to science to help solve the problems (and others) that I outlined above.
Also, plagiarism is not a footnote problem. It's more similar to lying like a rug.
John C. Wolff Jr.
Paul exemplifies political woes
A recent Herald-Leader article encapsulates much that is wrong with politics today. It dealt with Sen. Rand Paul's plagiarism of a movie review used in a speech to try to make the ludicrous point that scientists are aiming to cull people in the name of eugenics.
This episode, however, has implications far beyond that idea. One of the most serious points against Paul is that he used a Wikipedia article describing a mediocre sci-fi film, Gattaca, in place of actual research in science. Paul was either cynically using a fictional source to make a point, or else he believes what he said and respects his source.
Even worse, however, is the quotation from one of his handlers that "all politicians cut corners" and that this will all be forgotten by the time the next presidential election is upon us.
In other words, it's OK to cheat as long as it's done early enough that people won't bother to remember it later.
If we can't come up with better candidates than this, in both parties, we deserve what we will get.
Finding the real Rand Paul
It's a shame that there isn't a simple test to determine whether a person suffers from paranoia. Sen. Rand Paul's comments about science and his fear of eugenics sure do make you wonder.
Paul has recently been questioned about whether he has plagiarized some of his statements and speeches. While I disapprove of plagiarism, in Paul's case I feel the most important point is overlooked.
In my evaluation of him, I often look to statements he made early in his primary bid. I feel we may gain an insight into his core beliefs untainted by later pollsters, political hacks and his desire for a presidential run.
In the early version of Paul, less crafted and presumably more open, he stated beliefs approaching those of a 19th century political time traveler. His advocacy of turning mine safety oversight to local county control should scare anyone who opposes control by the mining companies.
Statements that industrial accidents sometimes "just happen" reveal a total lack of understanding.
Opposition to parts of the Civil Rights and Americans with Disabilities acts indicate a lack of empathy for those held outside both legally and socially.
Years later, no mention of these beliefs from Paul. Instead he lectures Howard University students on Republican support of civil rights. He jokes of dueling with those he opposes.
Perhaps Paul is a time traveler from 150 years ago, but seriously, what should disquiet is the Paul before the smoothed-up version we now see.
Aren't you embarrassed?
Is anyone in Kentucky embarrassed that they sent a senator who plagiarizes to Washington? What an embarrassment.
I had more ethics in third grade than he has as a supposed adult. Sad what the southern states of the U.S. represent to the rest of the world.
Coral Springs, Fla.