I think I established the fact that Penn State has not cleared him of all charges yet.
So I see an inaccurate attack against somehow who richly deserves another, accurate attack.
And I should shut up.
Because that fights ignorance.
And by speaking up, and arguing for the correct attack and against the incorrect attack… that makes people question my motives?
How about this? How about the proposition that motives are irrelevant? How about the concept that on a messageboard that claims it wishes to fight ignorance, the chief goal should be accurate information, and not political purity?
In this very thread, in fact, it’s understood that Cuccinelli’s position is fundamentally wrong, because he’s letting his political bias outweigh the science. The accurate, technical results speak for themselves, right? Cuccinelli’s action is wrong on a fundamental level because he doesn’t accept that; he seems to believe that global warming exists, or doesn’t, based on how popular opinion can be swung.
And he is rightly reviled for it.
By people who do the same fucking thing when it comes to criticizing him.
Cuccinelli is not looking at what you are reporting here, but his past work and grant requests when he was at Virginia.
IOW, there’s nothing there, but the crusading investigator there can’t force himself to admit it any more than you can.
And you know what’s hilarious?
Back when Patrick Kennedy was accused of driving drunk and getting preferential treatment from Capitol Police, I said this:
And I seem to remember getting praise for my fair-minded approach.
Gee.
I am certainly aware of that. The question remains - why is it right and proper for Penn State to investigate grant requests (so much so that this is not remarked upon) and somehow eeeevil for Cuccinelli to do the exact same thing for those grant requests under his jurisdiction?
What is his evidence, because I’ve seen nothing that would justify starting an investigation into possible criminal or civil actions. Maybe you have some that I’ve missed that would indicate what this “fraud” that Mann supposedly might have done, but I have yet to see it. The ONLY thing even close is the trumped up “climategate” which has no actual evidence of fraud. So please, do share this “evidence” Cooch is using to justify this investigation.
Again, please share. Because there is nothing in Cooch’s history, nothing in the climategate, and nothing in his letter to indicate there is any evidence.
Damn, Bricker your victim shtick is getting more and more tiresome by the minute.
So if by “fighting ignorance” you mean “criticizing everybody who doesn’t agree with your narrow, legalistic standards of how I view the world,” then, smashing, you’re doing a bang-up job. Apparently if somebody you politically agree with gets Pitted, they must be Pitted “correctly”. That is, it’s not correct to say “So-and-so sucks,” we must do it right. But only in your eyes, since you apparently are the final word in these matters.
The log in your eye is huge. I remember some time ago you pretended to consider voting for Barack Obama as long as he was “noble”. You said you’d consider voting for him if his politics and his campaign were clean. Notice that you’ve never made that consideration for a Republican–that you might think of not voting GOP because they ran “unclean”, un-noble campaigns. Apparently, the GOP can run as many dirty campaigns as they wish, and that will not stop you from voting for them.
And then you backtracked, not because he didn’t practice clean politics, but because some unnamed people on the internet “sullied” Sarah Palin. Wasn’t that unjustly accusing Obama? Of course it was. But you were letting your political bias show for you, weren’t you?
Oh, and there was this:
So, if you don’t mind very much, shut the fuck up about our “dishonest” and “unfair tactics”. Your ass should be silent for years. Anyone as blaringly, massively wrong as you were should have hidden in a hole for at least a few months. Since you couldn’t hide your smug ass then, I suggest you do now.
Cuchinelli has the power of the State to compel people and institutions to comply with his demands, and he has used that power to force UVA to provide information. I would think the misuse of governmental power to score political points would be something we could all condemn.
“Pretended?”
I did vote for Obama.
So, were you trolling when you said you’d rub our faces in his loss, or are you trolling now?
Yes, I said that.
Later in that same thread, I said:
Interesting that you didn’t quote that one.
I’ve already admitted that was a flash of temper, a crappy thing to say, and apologized for it. I did it in the same thread I posted the original, hateful screed.
This investigative panel of Penn State - don’t they have the implicit backing of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania behind them? Penn State is a public institution, isn’t it?
Again - I don’t support this move of Cuccinelli’s. I think he weakens his public case because of his rather clear biases. However, I won’t pretend that he doesn’t have the authority to do what he is doing or that there is no case there to pursue.
After all, there is an open investigation still going on at an institution I generally respect despite my dislike for their football team. If that’s not a closed matter for them, why should I pretend that this should be a closed matter for me or others? Why should I pretend that it should be a closed matter for a state official here?
So, in other words, you let your emotion get away from you and you posted something angry about someone you didn’t agree with who didn’t deserve it, because of your long-held political stance.
Think about that. Now think about this thread.
Doesn’t the OP have a right to be angry at Cuccinelli? I mean, he actually did the thing that the OP is mad about, unlike your situation with Obama. The OP didn’t brag that he was going to rub Cuccinelli’s supporters’ faces in the mud when Cuccinelli lost–which is what you did in that thread. The OP didn’t even say that he was that mad–just that he was “embarrassed” by Cuccinelli and “wanted to turn him off”–again, revisit your own OP.
Apparently with you hindsight is 20/20. You’re free to make an overly-emotional, partisan post, but oh boy, nobody else is going to get away with that mistake, even if it’s a tenth as cringeworthy as yours! “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”–now what nincompoop said that?
Penn State is not, if it is like every other university I know, empowered by law to force people to comply with their requests for information. Attorneys General are.
He does have the authority to do what he is doing. It is the misuse of that authority to score political points that I am condemning.
Because there is world of difference between “deviating from accepted practices within the academic community” and commiting fraud. Every official investigation into Mann and his actions has concluded that there is no fraud in his work. Yet, despite that, Cooch seems to think it’s OK to use the powers of the State to compel UVA to track down information to see if there is fraud. There is no valid comparison to be drawn between the two.
Additionally, I want you to reconsider this statement.
Forcing UVA to provide information is not a power limited to Ken Cuccinelli - I have that power as a citizen of Virginia. We have a fairly robust Freedom of Information Act here that applies to state agencies and local governments.
In general you seem like the sort of person that would favor this - so I wonder why you implied in your statement that a public university should be permitted to keep information from the public.
If I have misunderstood you, please set me straight.
It seems you are bent on confusing individual citizens and institutions (Penn State and your FOIA requestor) and the Attorney General using his governmental power to compel action. I honestly don’t know whether everything that Cooch is demanding could be gathered by a FOIA, but I highly suspect they wouldn’t be (especially his source code, his emails, and his research work product). I would imagine that long before Cooch, someone would have filed such a FOIA request for this stuff if it were, in fact, authorized.
But, again, you are attempting to conflate two separate things, requests by an individual or institution, and demands made under color of law by an AG with no evidence. If you still do not understand the difference, I fear we are at an impasse.
Which is an interesting point, but totally moot, because you are comparing Penn State and AG Cuccinelli. Since Penn State is neither a citizen nor a resident of Virginia, it doesn’t enjoy that state’s FOIA rights.
Not totally moot - the investigation being conducted by Penn State is because they are Prof. Mann’s current employer. Cuccinelli is investigating records of grant requests at the University of Virginia, where Mann taught from 1999-2005.
As Mann’s employer, could Penn State investigate his work emails, work product, and source code? Bet they could.
What would be their probable cause?