In the U.S., the academic and political Left have had fits about Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli exercising even more specific, anti-fraud authority to seek further records from University of Virginia in following up on indications from the first Climategate release of possible fraud against the taxpayer.
Apparently, that represented an abuse of the police power. No word yet if they are outraged by DOJ’s current foray or that of the UK raiding team.
The DOJ attorney sending the preservation letters, as it happens in this small world, a graduate of the University of Virginia (UVA). And UVA is also the subject of litigation a group I am associated with, the American Tradition Institute (ATI), that has filed suit on behalf of Virginia taxpayers seeking Climategate-related emails the school holds.
This is a case which has members of the Virginia faculty and establishment beside themselves and demanding an all-out effort to oppose production of the requested documents in an effort to wear us and Cuccinelli down.
So far UVA has spent upwards of $1 million fighting Cuccinelli’s request, and school officials continue to fight us in court every step of the way.
Clearly, this is no small matter in the quarters insisting that this taxpayer-financed information never see the light of day. Even the criminal legal apparatus of the U.S. and UK must be invoked against this threat, apparently.
They’re upset because their fraud has been exposed.
It’s interesting that even some of the folks at Think Progress like some of Newt’s SF policy. I don’t think this is as wonderful a weapon against him as Romney seems to. Speaking of which, he doubled down yesterday:
That article also includes a clip of a video interview with Romney on Monday where the former Massachusetts governor again raised the issue when asked about differences between himself and Gingrich. “The idea of a lunar colony? I think that’s going to be a problem in the general election,” Romney said about two and a half minutes into the clip. “So you’re suggesting he’s a little nutty?” asked POLITICO’s Mike Allen. “I’m suggesting he has differing views than I do on very important issues,” Romney responded, but later added, “I’m not going to characterize the Speaker’s views on science.”
Emphasis mine. That Romney thinks that this discussion is about science just demonstrates how completely out to sea he is on the topic. One of his advisers really needs to explain things to him. He’s going to turn off a lot of people needlessly, and probably already has.
Establishing these goals is critical because, as the Augustine committee rightly noted, “Planning a human spaceflight program should start with … the goals to be accomplished by the program … its raison d’être, not … which object in space to visit. Too often … planning … has begun with ‘where’ rather than ‘why’.” And one might add that on occasion planning has begun with “what.” Our community has been so energetic in advocating destinations and vehicles that we appear to think that they are the “why,” which defeats sustainability.
These goals, a fundamental expression of “why,” serve several critical functions. Most importantly, they are the basis for setting priorities to determine the most relevant path through the destination-capability trade space. Having a path makes human space exploration coherent and provides the basis for measuring progress. “Why” makes human space exploration an intelligible and, one hopes, compelling whole that promotes stakeholder understanding and support. “Why” also differentiates human space exploration from its competitors in creating value, such as other ways to inspire young people or support competitiveness. There is a fundamental difference between “why” NASA should have a human space exploration program and its value.
Until people understand this, we’ll continue to spin our metaphorical wheels, and waste billions with little progress.