Yes but you fail to mention that he notes.
Not quite. It was not all generosity.
From: [____] To: [____] Date: 9/1/2004 Subject: Re: Life on the West Wing 1st Floor [____] I believe [____] could have answered most of his questions by asking around IZ—there was no need to bother you as you no doubt appreciate. As you see, he is presuming most of this rather than asking … there is no space shortage, except insofar as [____] wants to deny him space. Anyway, the core point, I obviously am not going to be able to find a sponsor for Sternberg, yet his official status is as a research associate for the next three years. If you don’t want to make a martyr of him, I'll sponsor him. As he hasn’t (yet) been discovered to have done anything wrong, particularly compared to his peers, the sole reason to terminate his appt. seems to be that the host unit has suddenly changed its mind. If that’s OK w NMNH, let me know and I'll send him a letters stating so. However, as you decided originally, the political downside of that is costly. Outside of pique, [____]’s main legitimate concern seems to be a fear of guilt by association. In any case [____] isn’t going to be shut up about this until he wins (i.e. banishes Sternberg) or gets told to. I'm not going to get bit to death by daily emails. The access and key issues are trivial and can be fixed, if out of line. The only grounds I see is [____]’s lack of support. If that isn’t sufficient, then I basically have to tell [____] (again) to shut up (which I am willing to do). Which do you prefer?
In any case the OSC report and the Congressional report outline the shoddy treatment Sternberg received.
Wow, you can see here he was going to get special treatment just because they knew he would pull this victim stunt. In opposite to persecution, it seems we have an ID affirmative action program going, kind of like how you don't want to fire the black gay woman who mishandled artifacts for fear she'll pull the black/gay/gender card and ruin your day.
ID goes PC!
It wasn't a "Congressional report," except insofar as it was a report issued by a Congressman. The Congressman in question, Mark Souder, is on record in support of "teaching the controversy"--he writes on his Web site,
But why can’t high school students just learn the standard scientific view and be done with it? Science is science, and that should end the debate.Souder commissioned the report to be written by his staff, but it wasn't accepted into the Congressional Record and was only published in his capacity as an individual representative.Normally it would. But evolution is different.
Similarly, as far as I can tell, the "OSC report" is one letter written by one attorney summarizing his preliminary investigation. I can't find out much about the lawyer except that it's been claimed that he had no prior employment law experience before his appointment to the OSC.