Virginia's Lysenko

The reining in that actually needs to be done (4.00 / 1)

Cuccinelli likes to tell us about his little theory of how the Union works.  Sure, the people of the US voted in Obama and a Democratic majority in Congress last federal election.  But then the people of the Commonwealth voted in Republicans at the state level last Fall.  Whether or not they realized it, according to Cuccinelli, the people of VA were voting in folks whose job it is to rein in the federal govt, rather than what many of us might have supposed, that we were electing a state govt.

Cuccinelli believes that the Commonwealth is our actual govt.  And it's a govt that has broader powers than you people out there who imagined that the US was your only govt, are at all used to.  The Constitution can't possibly bind Cuccinelli's govt, because the Constitution is merely a contractual agreement among the states, and that federal govt that we are used to thinking of as our govt, is actually just the creation of VA and the other states.  Academic freedom is the least important of the rights and freedoms that the namby-pamby federal govt has to respect, but that the full-throated govt in Cuccinelli's mind can and must trample to advance the power of the state.

There is an actor in this little psycho-drama of Cuccinelli's that does need reining in, but it's not the federal govt, it's not our true govt as US citizens.  Sure, his individual outrages need to opposed, but that opposition cannot be the limit of what this situation requires.  We have, as our highest legal authority, someone who doesn't believe in the Union, doesn't believe that it is our govt.  He needs reining in.  He needs reining in by our actual govt, the federal govt, because the fundamental duty of actual govt is to protect us all from anyone who seeks to usurp that govt.  

But he also needs reining in by the people and govt of the Commonwealth.  And since his misdeeds in office are not simply one-off mistakes, but all stem from one fixed conviction of his, that VA is our one country of allegiance, and he is the govt of that country, that reining in cannot be limited to just blocking each individual outrage he commits.  He needs to be impeached and removed form office.  If there aren't the votes in the legislature for that, his office needs to have its funding blocked, completely, totally.  Let the majority of the House deal with this consequence of their refusal to do their duty and impeach this lunatic, by allowing funding of some other agency newly created to do whatever useful and needful work the AG's office is actually supposed to be engaged in.  

---

by: Glen Tomkins @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 13:28:50 PM UTC

Well, I thought we had resolved those questions... (0.00 / 0)

..first with a Civil War, then with a Civil Rights movement.  I guess some people are just a century or two behind the times...

Impeachinelli! Now on Twitter.

---

by: kindler @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 14:43:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cuccinelli believes that... (0.00 / 0)

"[Virginia's] govt... has broader powers than you people out there who imagined that the US was your only govt, are at all used to."

That is, of course, quite true.  The US Constitution gives the US government specific, enumerated powers, and then "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution can't possibly bind Cuccinelli's govt....

I think we can all agree that the freedoms specified in the Bill of Rights are, or should be, incorporated by the 14th Amendment, and that they do bind the State governments.  Other than that, yes, the State governments do have powers that the federal government does not.  For instance, the requirement to buy health insurance.  Nothing in the Constitution gives Congress the power to make that requirment, but neither does anything in the Constitution prohibit the States' making such a requirement.  

...the Constitution is merely a contractual agreement among the states, and that federal govt that we are used to thinking of as our govt, is actually just the creation of VA and the other states.

That is, essentially, correct.  Representatives of the States wrote the Constitution, and the States ratified it, and in doing created the federal government.  In fact, that is the very definition of the word "federal."

Academic freedom is the least important of the rights and freedoms that the namby-pamby federal govt has to respect, but that the full-throated govt in Cuccinelli's mind can and must trample to advance the power of the state.

Since the professor is an employee of the State, all of his work belongs to the State.  Why do you have a problem with that?

---

by: jack @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 15:22:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The professor's work belongs to the State? (0.00 / 0)

Jack, that's surely the most communist statement I've heard uttered here on BV. So the State has the right to harrass professors and investigate them for fraud when the State disagrees with professors conclusions for political reasons?

Should we create a new Thought Police section of the VA State Troopers?

Impeachinelli! Now on Twitter.

---

by: kindler @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 17:49:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Those are the hazards... (0.00 / 0)

...of working for the State.  In fact, are those not the conditions of ANY employement -- that your work belongs to your employer?

---

by: jack @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 18:22:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You are kidding, right? (4.00 / 1)

You don't really believe that all of the thousands of academics working in state universities have no academic freedom, right?

Also, of course, you're dead wrong that everything produced by state universities is the property of the state. There are all kinds of arrangements in which intellectual property rights (copyright, patent) may be shared with professors and sometimes with corporate donors.  In the ideal case, info is in the public domain. I don't need any government dictating scientific truth for me.  

Impeachinelli! Now on Twitter.

---

by: kindler @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 23:19:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Certainly they have academic freedom... (0.00 / 0)

...but their work (papers, reseach, emails, etc.) belongs to the State, because they are State employees.  My work belonged to the U.S. government when I worked for the DoD, and my current work belongs to my current employer.

This is hardly a radical idea.

---

by: jack @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 23:35:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The state is the employer... (0.00 / 0)

...But we have a tradition of freedom from tyranny in which the State cannot simply prosecute you for fraud if it dislikes your opinions.  

Impeachinelli! Now on Twitter.

---

by: kindler @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:35:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

He's not being prosecuted (0.00 / 0)

But the investigation is warranted.

---

by: jack @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 03:32:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

See the Washington Post (0.00 / 0)

editorialon Cuccinelli's "Witch Hunt": "As ammunition for this chilling assault, Mr. Cuccinelli twists beyond recognition a statute designed to punish government contractors who use fake receipts to claim taxpayer funds and those who commit other such frauds."

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 09:25:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where state interposition gets you (4.00 / 1)

If we are to continue as an undivided Union, insofar as there is any Constitutional question about the individual mandate, it must be treated as solely a dispute between individual citizens who believe that the Congress has overstepped its bounds, and taken from them a right to not pay for health care, and the Congress that passed the law requiring such payment.

To introduce to this question of the mandate any place for the state of VA, is to assert both that the doctrine of state interposition is correct in general, and the much more difficult idea that state inteposition and nullification are appropriate remedies for the mandate.  

VA has absolutely no dog in this hunt, the question of whether the Congress can impose such a mandate on individuals.  The only way we get VA into this question is to follow exactly the theory that you state.  We have to say that, while the US govt cannot impose the mandate on individuals, because it is a govt limited sharply by the Constitution, the govt of the Commonwealth can, because it is not so limited, therefore the Commonwealth has this interest in the question of the mandate, that it needs to preserve its 10th Amendment right to, arguably, oppress the people of VA in ways that the US govt is not allowed to do.  

That's not the way that those of us who are not insane view this matter.  If the mandate is a bad idea (which is what I believe), we say elect a Congress that will repeal it (in favor of something better, if we follow my ideas on the subject).  If it's a bad idea that is unfortunately too popular to kill this way, but you believe that it should not be something that the majority should be allowed to impose on the minority, we say that individuals who believe this (I don't) are free to use the federal courts to vindicate that right.  I can't see that any sane person who believes that the federal govt has no right to force them to buy insurance, would believe that the Commonwealth should have that right.  That doesn't compute to any one but secession and nullification nostalgists.  But that insane position is the only way we get VA into this question of the mandate.

That insane position is also the only way that you can justify Cuccinelli, as AG of VA, having the right to suppress academic freedom in ways we rightly would never tolerate from the federal govt.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be arguing, in your example about the mandate, for exactly the position on the sweeping, authoritarian powers that VA supposedly has, that are exactly what concern sane people in this matter of the UVA witchhunt.

I'm not going to argue with you about the existence of several doors to disunion that the Founders left in the Constitution.  They had to leave these doors in place because the reality that we had before we were one country, was that we were 13 different countries, with 13 different armies, all of them originally stronger than the US Army.  These countries were not about to enter a Union that did not give them a way out, in dire and extreme need, of the Union that they were entering.

So, yes, the 10th Amendment, and the 2d Amendment, and Art IV, sec 4; are there as doors to leaving the Union.  Interposition, nullification, and even secession, are as Constitutional as church on Sunday.

But that status does not make their use in anything but dire and extreme emergencies any less criminally insane than it would be without the existence of these doors to an outmoded past.  The states no longer possess armies that can rival the US Army.  Do you propose that we take your 2d Amendment seriously, and remedy that situation?  If we don't, if VA cannot present the credible threat of fighting off the US Army should the disagreements between our state and the federal govt that are inevitable in the system of divided sovereignty that you envision not prove soluble as VA negotiates with the US as a supposed equal, then that system of divided sovereignty makes no sense, and will not work.  But if VA and the US are co-equals, then VA needs the means to enforce its rights.  If you, quite reasonably, won't go that far, if you won't follow this path of state interposition to its inevitable end in states rights maintained by force of arms, then you need to get off that path, now, before its start.

---

by: Glen Tomkins @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 17:52:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Overstepping constitutional power is enough (0.00 / 0)

it must be treated as solely a dispute between individual citizens who believe that the Congress has overstepped its bounds, and taken from them a right to not pay for health care

I dispute your use of the conjunction "and."  It should be "or."  If Congress has overstepped its bounds by imposing the mandate, then the mandate is unconstitutional.  If Congress has taken from the people the right not to pay for health insurance (not care), then the mandate is unconstitutional.  Only only of those two conditions is required for the mandate to be unconstitutional.

while the US govt cannot impose the mandate on individuals, because it is a govt limited sharply by the Constitution, the govt of the Commonwealth can, because it is not so limited

That is EXACTLY what I am saying.  Massachusetts has the power to impose such a mandate on its citizens (unless, of course, that violates the Massachusetts Constitution), but the United States does not.

If the mandate is a bad idea (which is what I believe), we say elect a Congress that will repeal it (in favor of something better, if we follow my ideas on the subject).  If it's a bad idea that is unfortunately too popular to kill this way, but you believe that it should not be something that the majority should be allowed to impose on the minority, we say that individuals who believe this (I don't) are free to use the federal courts to vindicate that right.

What you seem to be saying (correct me if I am wrong) is that Congress can do absolutely anything it wants, so long as that does not violate our individual rights?

I can't see that any sane person who believes that the federal govt has no right to force them to buy insurance, would believe that the Commonwealth should have that right.

It is not a question of "rights," but of powers.  In the Constitution, the U.S. government is delegated specific, enumerated powers -- all others "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

---

by: jack @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 18:43:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where we differ, where we agree (4.00 / 1)

"In the Constitution, the U.S. government is delegated specific, enumerated powers -- all others 'are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'"

As I said, you are absolutely right about what the Founders intended.  It is tolerably clear that they intended EXACTLY the system you favor, a system in which the states limit the federal govt, but are not themselves limited by that federal govt, a system in which the powers of the state govt are not limited except by the citizens of that state.

My question to you is whether you agree that the system that you intend, and the Founders admittedly intended, still makes sense.  Are you willing to follow the Founders down that path all the way to its end?  Do you agree with Madison's opinion, in the face of the Alien and Sedition Acts, that state nullification of a federal law is justified?  Will you follow that path where Madison freely admitted it might lead, to blockage of enforcement of a federal law by state militias?

You mentioned the 14th Amendment in your first post.  One way to exit the path to secession left open by the 10th Amendment is to say that the "equal protection" clause means that, in fact, states can't impose any restrictions, infringe any rights, of their citizens, that the federal govt can't.  But if that's true, if you're going to avail yourself of that exit from the path to Civil War over the mandate, then the second part of your 10th Amendment, where it talks about reserving some powers to the states that the federal govt is not allowed, is surely a dead letter, is it not?  The 10th (at least that second part of it. God help us if we get to discussing what "reserving powers", as opposed to rights, to the people might mean.)has already been repealed by the 14th, hasn't it?

"What you seem to be saying (correct me if I am wrong) is that Congress can do absolutely anything it wants, so long as that does not violate our individual rights?"

The other place that perhaps you would want to exit the path to nullification is in distinguishing between Congress and the whole of the federal govt.  No, just because I do not believe that the states are a sane place to look for protecting the indvidual citizen from the federal govt, doesn't mean that I believe that there are no sane and necessary places of such recourse.  People who believe a statute that Congress passes to be, not just bad policy, but also a violation of their individual rights, can vindicate those rights in the federal courts.  Congress cannot do absolutely anything it wants as long as the courts are open and protecting those individual rights from the Congress.

We would only really "need" the states to get in on the act, to interpose between the federal govt and the rights of individuals, if the courts failed to agree that the Congress was in the wrong, that it had no right to impose a mandate.  You don't need state interposition until and unless the federal courts side with Congress.  

In pursuing a lawsuit in the federal courts over the mandate, admittedly Cuccinelli is formally not (yet) challenging the federal govt as a whole, just Congress.  My point is that there is no place for VA in this dispute, by even a states' rights theory of how our govt works, until and unless the federal govt as a whole, courts included, sides with this mandate that you believe to be unconstitutional.  By interposing the state before the federal govt has taken a unified stance on the matter, while the question is still before the courts, Cuccinelli is either doing something that no one thinks needs to be done, or he intends not to respect the decision of the federal courts, should they go, as every expert on federal jurisprudence seems to expect, against him.

"Massachusetts has the power to impose such a mandate on its citizens (unless, of course, that violates the Massachusetts Constitution), but the United States does not."

Most of us would say that MA can impose a mandate to buy insurance because all levels of govt can do that, not because that state, or any other state, gets to do something to its citizens that the federal govt, our only govt, doesn't get to do.  If MA can do it, the US surely can.

---

by: Glen Tomkins @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 19:25:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not everything governments do is bad (0.00 / 0)

But you speak of "that state, or any other state, gets to do something to its citizens that the federal govt... doesn't get to do."

(And why do you say, "the federal govt, our only govt"?  The federal government is not our only government.)

"If MA can do it, the US surely can."

In a word, no.  Wisconsin had an income tax in 1911 -- after the U.S. income tax was ruled unconstitutional (1895) and before the 16th Amendment (1913).  Was Wisconsin's income tax unconstitutional?  No, but the U.S. Supreme Court "decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution."
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/...

Similarly, a U.S. property tax would not be "apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution," but it is constitutional for the States.

States can go so far as to give all of its citizens food, clothing, shelter, and health care.  But I defy you to find such powers given to the U.S. government in the Constitution.

---

by: jack @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 20:04:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The 14th didn't repeal the 10th? (4.00 / 1)

You told us it did, originally, when you were trying to reassure us that VA, even under Ayatollah Cuccinelli, wouldn't be able to violate individual rights.

So, yes, you're right, WI was able to have an income tax forbidden to the US, at a time after the 14th had been passed.  And yes, several New England states had Test Acts which prohibited Roman Catholics from holding state office, long after the 14th was passed.  My question is, is that a good thing, is that any way to run a unified country?

So, which is it?  We're in danger of losing who knows what individual rights to a state govt not effectively, completely, prevented by the 14th from oppressing us, and we're at the mercy of an unfettered Cucinelli -- or the 14th means that we don't have to worry about Cuccinelli destroying academic freedom, or any of our other rights?  If the latter, can I sign you up for the effort to get rid of an AG who clearly doesn't know his place in our system, who is clearly some kind of nut?  If the former, same question, but more pressing, because if states do have those powers, we really, really don't want a loose cannon in control of a state's legal apparatus.

When I say that the federal govt is our govt, our only govt, I mean that, while, yes, we have a Constitution that had to bow to a very different theory, that had no choice but to recognize and defer to the military might of the separate states, any deference at all to that theory now is barking madness.  The states, in any sane practical implementation of our highly imperfect Constitution, have to be treated the same way that adminstrative divisions of other countries are treated, as mere creatures of the one, national, govt.  What the states can and cannot do, their scope, must be considered to be wholely at the discretion of the federal govt.  Anything other position on this question is either non-serious, a misunderstanding of what divided sovereignty means, or it sets us on a path to disunion.

There can be fossil remnants of the old, divided sovereignty theory, and we can leave undisturbed some such traditonal arrangement as that local govts can have property taxes while the federal govt is not allowed these, without disturbing the important principal that we must not allow state govts to assert any sort of new power to "rein in" the federal govt.  We had no choice but allow this when our nation was new.  But that necessary compromise led to disunion and war.  We don't have to allow this any more, and if we have any sense, we will not, because it will again lead to disunion and war.  

---

by: Glen Tomkins @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 21:26:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK, you've thrown out the Constitution... (0.00 / 0)

...so there is really no common point of reference for our conversation.

---

by: jack @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 23:36:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Which side is ignoring the Constitution? (0.00 / 0)

We have the supremacy clause, that says that the Constitution, and the statutes that Congress passes, are the law of the land, period, no allowance for VA or any other state to agree or disagree.  When we have an AG who says that he was elected to "rein in" the federal govt, I'm sorry, It's not my side of the argument that is calling for ignoring the Constitution.  There is no place in that scheme for VA to pass laws for no other purpose than to attempt to usurp the authority of Congress to pass statutes that will be the supreme law of the land.  There is no place in that scheme for the AG of VA to assert a standing made up out of whole cloth by this VA nullification law, in order to interpose VA between the federal govt and citizens of the US in a dispute that does not involve VA.  

But in addition to this tolerably clear supremacy clause, we also have the 10th Amendment, that reserves all powers not granted to the federal govt, to the states, or the People.  I agree that we have to assume that the Founders could not have meant absolutely nothing by this Amendment. So there must be some non-null set of powers that the federal govt -- not just Congress, but Congress plus the federal courts -- is forbidden by this Amendment, and not by any other provision of the Constitution, from wielding.  

But who is to make that delineation between what is forbidden to Congress, and what is allowed to it?  

If you say that only SCOTUS does that delimitation, then we are back to a null set for the 10th Amendment, because you are saying that one branch of the federal govt alone can deny any power to Congress, and not any entity outside the federal govt.  You are agreeing with me that we have only one govt, the federal govt.  Then you have to retract your earlier statements about what Cuccinelli is doing ref the individual mandate as being justified by the 10th Amendment.  You are forced back to the idea that the lawsuit over the mandate is simply a 9th Amendment case (and indeed, the pleading our AG filed does not, to my admittedly untrained eye, contain any reference to a 10th Amendment claim, but only to the 9th Amendment rights of individuals that the mandate supposedly violates).  But if that's your position, then what is VA doing in this case?  This is a dispute between Congress and individual US citizens who might believe that the mandate violates their rights, a dispute in which VA has no place.

If, on the other hand, you are going to stick with your original assertion that the individual mandate is a 10th Amendment case, if you are going to go with Cuccinelli's concept of his role in our govt, that it is a legitimate function of state AGs to "rein in", to any degree whatsoever, the federal govt, then you have to shred the supremacy clause.  You have to make the claim that it is states that do the 10th Amendment delineation of what is theirs, and what is the federal govt's, for states to "rein in" the federal govt.  Or rather, to state the case more exactly as it has evolved in this tradition of interposition, when a state interposes its power to decide what Congress can and can't do, it creates an impasse that cannot be resolved within our formal legal regime.  The federal govt and the state in question have to decide between asserting their claims by force of arms, vs backing down or negotiating some settlement short of open warfare.  

You can't really assert this states' rights interpretation of the 10th Amendment in the courts, since the whole idea is that the federal courts aren't the arbiters of 10th Amendment claims.  As happened the last time we saw states go for interposition, the 50s and 60s, over de-segregation, we won't see the full formal claim of interposition until VA has lost its case in the federal courts, until the federal courts have shown that they are complicit in Congress's supposed usurpation in imposing an individual mandate.  Then we will see the fully developed interpostion claim, that the federal govt as a whole, Congress and the federal courts, has exceeded its powers and usurped a state power.

Now, the conventional wisdom resolves this question of unitary vs divided sovereignty by saying that the tradition you seemed to be standing up for, of states' rights (and you are more than welcome to reconsider, as you seem to be doing as you leap to the defense of the integrity of the Constitution), is simply wrong.  The supremacy clause reigns supreme, and that's that.  You (your orignal position) and Cuccinelli are simply wrong about the Constitution.

I take a more generous view of at least the bare constitutionality, if not workability, of your claims about states' rights.  I freely admit that this is a genuine dilemma in the Constitution, that there are indeed passages in it that make no sense except as legitimizing disunion.  

I therefore conclude that you can't implement the Constitution as written without, practically, avoiding some of it.  The Founders could not write a Constitution that simply gave us one, united, new country, because the 13 old countries who formed the Union were, quite understandably, ambiguous about giving up their independence.  They wanted to have their cake and eat it, too.  They demanded their back doors to disunion before they would sign on to the Union.

So the Founders wrote all sorts of provisions that sure make it look like the new Union is one country, indivisible.  But they also put in these doors to disunion, like the 2d and 10th Amendments, and Art IV, sec 4.  I say we continue on our present course, and continue to avoid the insane branch of the path, the one that leads through these doors to disunion, and instead that we follow the supremacy clause and keep a workable Union.  

I don't claim that the constitutional pathways that I think are, practically speaking, dangerous, are therefore null and void.  It would be nice if we repealed these provisions, but while they stand unrepealed, they are still in force.  I don't propose taking away the academic freedom, or any other freedom of speech, even from people who forthrightly, more honestly and forthrightly than you or Cuccinelli are willing to, promote disunion.  I simply propose that anyone who suggests that we go anywhere near these doors be considered by the voters to be promoting the first steps toward disunion, and therefore be considered as having disqualified themselves from holding any position of public trust under the Union.  I don't support overriding any part of the Constitution, I just support ousting from office, using the political process, anyone who promotes implementing these few disunion provisions it contains.  

---

by: Glen Tomkins @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 03:18:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Amendments override the Constitution (0.00 / 0)

Therefore, the 10th Amendment would override the supremacy clause, except that the supremacy clause is itself bound to the specific powers of the U.S. government enumerated in the Constitution.

Now, if the U.S. government simply refuses to follow the plain meaning of the Constitution, let's say by appointing the President without the electoral college, and the SCOTUS does not overturn it, what do you suggest?  Should the States just roll over and play dead?

---

by: jack @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 03:44:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

While Jack takes the 10th too far (0.00 / 0)

VA and states have a lot of standing to disagree with federal overreach.  A lot of areas of the law are reserved to the states, criminal laws such as murder and other violent acts being the most easy to understand.  See U.S. v. Morrison.

---

by: WestEndVoter @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 14:15:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Virginia does have a dog in HCR (0.00 / 0)

We (including I) may disagree with Virginia's actions, but there is a constitutional question regarding HCR (which I believe is the purpose of your post).  Congress raised the point, I believe set up a committee to look at it, then, I believe, did not use that committee to look at the constitutionality of the final work product.  I personally think the so-called "right to privacy" in one's medical decisions presents more of a Constitutional issue than Jack's favorite 10th amendment, but I'm pretty sure that the AG would not push that argument too much (as it was the basis for Roe v. Wade).  

In other words, I am not going to begrudge a reasonable amount of government funds to get a first official opinion on the constitutionality of HCR. A lot of Virginia citizens want a challenge to HCR, and I think that the state's AG office is the most efficient avenue for such a challenge.  As I mentioned in a prior post, a mere constitutional challenge should be relatively cheap. And as kindler mentions:

The key to maintaining democracy is that when governments overreach, the people slap their hand.  

Now, as for the AGs political witchhunt here, that will not be cheap, and unless he has information that the rest of us do not, appears to be very poor use of government resources.    

---

by: WestEndVoter @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 14:05:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The revolt of the thinkers (0.00 / 0)

Under Bush II we came perilously close to this type of Stalinist government control of science and research, but Cucinnelli is the first to cross the line so boldly and so openly.

This action of Cucinneli shows the mindset of the natural authoritarian, self-righteous True Believer. When persons with this mindset gain positions of power, they see it as an opportunity to run wild, imposing their own True Beliefs on everyone else, no matter how bizarre. So we have this attempt, however disguised, at deciding what outcomes will be allowed to result from research---- leading, eventually to, (for example) how people should lead their private lives, including sex, how we will treat the environment for our own use, what kind of art, movies, plays will be allowed, how we will impose our will on other, recalcitrant nations in the world because of course we are superior to other peoples on account of our True Belief, we are, shall we say, exceptional. God loves us, and we can do no wrong.  In other words, we are Republicans.

At this time and place, here and now, this seems to be where we have arrived with the evolution of the formerly Grand Old Party, of whose dominant wing Cucinnelli has been an annointed standardbearer. What a pity no Republican has forcefully denounced his actions.  Just, what a pity.

---

by: Teddy Goodson @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 13:31:21 PM UTC

Mealy Mouthed McDonnell Response (0.00 / 0)

Bob McDonnell certainly did not denounce Cuccinelli's actions. His comment that Cooch was independently elected and that the governor hasn't spoken to the AJ is a "Gov. Wimpy" comment worthy of a platinum Wimp Award.

McDonnell is the head of the state GOP by virtue of his victory last November. Cooch was elected as a Republican. If McDonnell wanted to rein the guy in, it would be the simplest political move I can think of.

McDonnell's response is further proof of either his political ineptitude or his happiness in Cuccinelli's extremism because it furthers McDonnell's charade as a "moderate."

---

by: Elaine in Roanoke @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 14:14:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What would be most effective action here? (0.00 / 0)

Letter writing campaign, Recall campaign.  petition?
What form would gather the most support, and yet be effective?

Should we help UVA's response somehow,  can we ask for an audit of the AG's office?

---

by: fuzed @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 14:11:40 PM UTC

I'm wondering the same thing... (4.00 / 1)

I started yesterday by contacting my State Senator (Dave Marsden) about this.  He called me back an hour after I contacted his office and assured me that everyone is concerned, embarrassed etc etc etc.  I'm just not sure what clout if anything the State Assembly has over this clown.  While I've always been engaged in politics, I've never really thought about taking an active role until now.  I'm ready to singlehandedly take a petition to every door in the state if I have too.  I'm just that mad.  This guy is dangerous and an embarrassment to the entire state.  

---

by: Molecules @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 18:07:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mann should be investigated... (0.00 / 0)

and is being investigated by Penn State. Let that investigation take its course.  Virginia's involvement goes way too far.  If anything, Mann, as a relatively junior Professor crossed the line on acceptable research practices, and came up with a historical temperature record which made global warming look to be worse of a problem than it might be.  

(Miles/Lowell: I am not saying that Global Warming is not a problem -- just that the way he arrived at his historical record left a lot to be desired).  

While he did not appear to falsify data per se, there appeared to be too much advocacy in the way he used the data to create a historical temperature record which resembled a "hockey stick" when viewed over a period of over a thousand years.

Temperature    __________________/

             Time (thousands of years)

Because we have only had true global measurement of temperature via satellite for a few decades, scientists needed to use traditional thermometers in recent centuries, and "proxies", such as tree ring size, prior to the invention of thermometers.

Much of the criticism of Mann's work was based on, to put it nicely, the "creativity" and the lack of statistical rigor that he used to create the "hockey stick" graphs.  While his historical temperature record is still in debate, in my view, many, if not most scientists would seriously question, or even condemn, his research practices if they took the time to look at his research in detail.    

Does that "creativity" by a junior Professor rise to the level of criminal activity?  Unless there is more to the story that I have seen, assuredly not.  While I have definitely seen overreach in Virginia government that is worse than Cuccinelli's subpoena, that does not mean that Cuccinelli's political actions should not be condemned.  As kindler mentions, "when governments overreach, the people slap their hand."

Mann, as a scientist, overreached.  He has had his hand repeatedly slapped already.  So why cannot Cuccinelli now find better use of his time, for example, going after people that are truly cooking the books, blatently ignoring environmental/safety laws, and endangering Virginia citizens?

I guess that answers to that have been stated in other comments above. We know this is, at best, a political stunt, an attempt to discredit the foundations of climate change science by persecuting a single individual scientist.

Fortunately, there are solutions to political stunts.  As kindler mentions, "all hands on deck"!  Virginia's overreach definitely deserves your attention.
 

---

by: WestEndVoter @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 20:27:15 PM UTC

Scientific Method Correction (0.00 / 0)

The beauty of inductive reasoning and the scientific method is that all hypotheses and all theories are always open to correction by further research. Any "overreach" by Dr. Mann is open to correction, if indeed there was such a thing.

---

by: Elaine in Roanoke @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 22:21:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A clarification (0.00 / 0)

The major criticism of Mann's work on a historical temperature record was not his hypotheses and theories.  A historical temperature record can never be proven, absent someone with actual knowledge of the temperature of the Earth stretching back thousands of years.

Mann's "overreach" was in that he used methods that were arguably beyond the realm of acceptable scientific behavior to arrive at those methods.  While there are many investigations still going on in the UK, I believe a University study, while perhaps a bit too charitable, concludes properly:

1. We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.

2. We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians. Indeed there would be mutual benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of
temperature specialists.

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/...

It is not hard to read between the lines ("no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice", "very surprising") and figure out that the University was disappointed with the scientists' work.

Mann and the other scientists have received their punishment.  They do not deserve this witch-hunt.    

---

by: WestEndVoter @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 14:36:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]