My piece explaining an
appeal I filed today with NASA over a thoroughly bizarre effort
on its part to withhold ethics-related records of James Hansen is
now up at
Pajamas Media, with links to the appeal and similar
documents.
In short: how can you even try to pull the claim that
releasing Hansen's applications for waiver for outside
employment -- the ol' GSFC 17-60 -- would constitute a 'clearly
unwarranted violation of his personal privacy', when you just
released the same file for his co-worker Gavin Schmidt?
Do you really think you can get away with saying that whether or
not NASA is complying with its ethics obligations is not relevant
to the agency's operations, whether it is fulfilling its statutory
duties or, as one court famously put it, "what [NASA] is up to"?
Will you go to the mat with this claim that whether or not NASA is
obeying ethics laws is not of the public's interest?
And, you're not really going to try to try the super
hush-hush, national security, dontchaknow, "Glomar'
reply, refusing to confirm or deny the records exist, like NSA did
in creating this move regarding Cold War spy operations? Because I
have to say, that seems to be what you're hinting at.
Anyone get the sense there's a there, there? Or, as I suspected
after seeing Schmidt's files and reading NASA explain he only
recently hopped right on that requirement after figuring out we
were indeed coming after his records, that the applications are
somewhat wanting?
In my view , playing the man and not the ball in such a manner
goes beyond conduct unbecoming a Republican.
It calls Horner's judgment into question in that reasonable
observers may well ask why someone with a scientific case would
stoop to harassing scientists ?
In my view , playing the man and not the ball in such a manner
goes beyond conduct unbecoming a Republican.
It calls Horner's judgment into question in that reasonable
observers may well ask why someone with a scientific case would
stoop to harassing scientists ?
Russell Seitz| 3.17.11 @ 2:34AM
In my view , playing the man and not the ball in such a manner goes beyond conduct unbecoming a Republican.
It calls Horner's judgment into question in that reasonable observers may well ask why someone with a scientific case would stoop to harassing scientists ?
Russell Seitz| 3.17.11 @ 2:34AM
In my view , playing the man and not the ball in such a manner goes beyond conduct unbecoming a Republican.
It calls Horner's judgment into question in that reasonable observers may well ask why someone with a scientific case would stoop to harassing scientists ?