Well, there was this–
That line suggests that the action is in his political interests, and consistent with his beliefs. It is silent on what the basis for the action is.
That is, does he have some good-faith basis for investigating fraud here? I don’t know. I have a guess, but I can’t adduce any evidence, other than “everyone knows.”
And despite my snark of a moment ago, I’ll share my guess: there’s probably some razor-thin discrepancy, along the lines of, “The grant application clearly requires that the original and two copies be provided, and Dr. Whosis failed to provide the original.” And based on that, some de minimis technicality, he’s taking the opportunity to launch this subpoena, hoping he’ll find something juicier.
But guessing that, and KNOWING that, are quite different.
How utterly typical. You can’t even use invectives in an original or entertaining way.
You should know, as well as everyone else, what this is; just another example of Cooch’s using his position to further his political party’s position. Yet, despite common sense, despite his history smacking you in the face, and despite the already completed investigation into Mann’s actions, you insist on defending Cooch. If it wasn’t so completely like you being an apologist whore, I’d be sad.
You see what you want to see.
I have done two things here: (1) Acknowledged that the clear probability is that this is politically motivated and without any but a pretextual basis; and (2) pointed out that this is supposition and not proof.
And of course I could have composed a long paragraph full of “goat felching;” accusing you of sexual congress with barnyard animals and rodents, suggesting that your parents met only briefly at a Chicago house of prostitution, claiming that you suffered from permanant erectile dysfunction, and that these disadvantages somehow rendered your opinion on this subject less than fully reliable.
But you don’t really deserve any of that garbage. But you did deserve a single appellation of ‘asshole,’ and that’s what you got.
The “funny” thing is that we actually see the same thing. There is a “clear probability” (I would go further, because, well, I’m in touch with reality) that the investigation is politically motivated and without any but pretextual basis. Cooch’s past actions, the prior investigations into Mann’s conduct, and common sense all tell us that. But you insist on further proof, as if he’ll admit it or that there’s a top secret super information that will come to our attention any day now.
And called me an asshole. You left that out.
It’s the same old thing with you. Deep, deep, deep inside of you is a rational human being, unblinded by politics, that was, and could be again, a very interesting person to debate issues with. But that being has been strangled and tied up, bound by the chains of political bias, contrary-ness, talking points, and perceived SDMB victimhood. That Bricker wouldn’t immediately come to the defense of Cooch, wouldn’t ignore the evidence to assert there isn’t any reason to Pit him for this. Oh for the halycon days of old…
Basically, you think pretty much the same thing as we do, but you are fiercely anxious to keep the cognitive and phenomenological distinctions sharply in focus? And you offer us a good solid scolding for failing to recognize that precise distinction?
Really? That’s it? Whats got a burr under your saddle is that somebody said “know” when they should have said “guess”?
OK, look, if you tell me that’s it, that’s what this is about, and its that damned important to you…I’ll pretend to believe it, out of respect. But you’re pushing the limits there. Guys I don’t respect that much, I’d be loading the snark cannon with unseemly glee. 'Cause, cousin, this is a big fat snark target, and self-restraint is not one of my favorite virtues. Modesty. That’s my favorite…
No, I didn’t.
What you call “SDMB victmhood” I see as an implicit demand that I behave reasonably while my opponents are free to do as they please. I must fight by the Marquis of Queensbury rules while the other side gets to do whatever the hell they want.
Not exactly. The burr comes from the fact that attacks on the left are met with “prove it,” and a response of “everybody knows” is laughed at.
But, hey, the moment it’s a target on the right, then suddenly “everybody knows” is plenty good enough. And I guess it is, if “everybody” is “the SDMB.”
Well, as his main target (Michel Mann) has been exonerated several times of wrongdoing regarding his work, I’m of the opinion that the evidence is against Cuccinelli, when one realizes that, one has to conclude that a fishing expedition is afoot.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/the_republican_war_on_science.php
Back in 2006 the National Research Council did look and even then there was no evidence of anything fraudulent.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/nas_report_on_hockey_stick_rel.php
I’ll happily accept correction on this impression, but this link seems to indicate that the result of Mann’s research are proper, and confirmed.
My understanding of what Cuccinelli claims to be asking for now is evidence of fraud in Mann’s grant applications, as opposed to the end product of his work.
The article gives no indication that any such evidence exists.
That is at best just a fig leaf offered by him.
From the article in the OP:
By the time Mann was asking for grants, there was a need to expand what by then were very incomplete reconstructions of past climate, so this accusation is baseless; one also has to use some common sense, it is very unlikely that anything fraudulent will be found as several investigations did not found any issues with the science or his past work.
But just as soon that fig leaf of “just looking for inconsistencies in grant application” is offered, Cuccinelli reveals where he is coming from:
I have to conclude that this nincompoop does not know how to use google.
Climategate was the most dishonest effort by deniers to change public opinion, idiots like Cuccinelli did swallow the lies hook line and sinker.
That was now, but even early science reporters had figured out that the ones bringing charges of dishonesty brought by the email scandal were being dishonest themselves.
It must, though.
Va Code § 8.01-216.11, relating to the civil investigative demand filed by Cuccinelli, states in pertinent part:
So either the civil investigative demand omits this section, an omission that would be fatally defective and would permit the demand to be ignored, or it contains it.
Agreed.
The question, if I may be so crude, is: does the fig leaf cover his dick, or not?
As I said above, i am personally convinced that this is motivated by something other than neutral desire to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth concerning fraud.
But can I prove it? Not with what I know.
I didn’t participate in the thread you’re referencing, so I don’t know if they’re fair comparisons, but assuming they are:
[ul]
[li]Because if you know it’s the case, you should stand for what you think, instead of devil’s advocating from a political soapbox[/li][li]Because other people being transparent in their political biases to the exclusion of logic, right, justice, and fairness doesn’t give you a pass to be that way. Far from popular opinion, behaving that way doesn’t help you win debate, it just makes those of us who might not participate but observe, that your opinions have as little value as the fakes we can already see. If you want to throw your cards in with them then, then so be it.[/li][li]Because every time you stand up for your party in the face of reality, you lessen the chance that your voice will be listened to when you have something genuine to say.[/li][li]Because despite what the political parties want you to believe, and what the media wants you to believe, this isn’t a game with points. It’s about people and ideas that are good for the country (or the local constituents). There’s nothing wrong with Democrats being right, just as there’s nothing wrong with Republicans being right. You don’t lose by standing up against a person with bad ideas in your party.[/li][/ul]
Your honor…
The statement “Glenn Beck raped and murdered someone in 1990, which is illegal under thus-and-such section of the criminal code” meets that description. The statement does not, however, contain any evidence that Glenn Beck did in fact rape and murder anyone.
It’s time to remember the first law of holes.
Not exactly. That would not, for instance, be sufficient to indict Glenn Beck, because it doesn’t allege the place the crime was committed, which is necessary to establish venue.
In order to be effective, the document would have to allege, with some specificity, the nature of the allegedly fraudulent conduct.
But you’re right. It doesn’t have to allege the evidence, just the conduct.