A Young Bush Appointee Resigns His Post at NASA

New York Times ^ | February 8, 2006 | Andrew C. Revkin

[DJ MacWoW]

You mean the way they went after Sandy the Burgler for stealing and destroying top secret documents? Oh. Wait. That didn't happen The Burgler got away with it.

[Liberty Valance]

Answer: Bush knew how to get out of Viet Nam.

OK. I get it now. I was a little slow on the uptake. What is your DU screen name?

[Steve_Seattle]

"So it's your contention that the best scientific knowledge we have on hand should be subordinated to superstition?"

I don't defend superstition; and some beliefs once regarded as scientific were later regarded as superstition or pure bunk - alchemy, astrology, the theory of humors, various kinds of racial theories, various medical practices, etc.

[Right Wing Professor]

So we had a 24 year old whippersnapper without a degree and with a faked resume, whose only credentials were working on a political campaign, telling distinguished climatologists what they could and could not say publicly.

One of the least savory aspects of the current administraiton is its arrant cronyism. It appears Harriet Myers and Michael Brown were only the tip of the iceberg.

[DJ MacWoW]

She's FRs resident troll.

[Lunatic Fringe]

MurryMom is a rabid conservative hater who loves to stick her thumb in the eyes of FReepers. She's been doing it for years. It's the only joy liberals have these days, since they are losing power at every level of government.

[Steve_Seattle]

One other thing you overlook is that many of the supposed controversies between science and religion or science and superstition were actually conflicts WITHIN science, and that the scientific establishment has generally resisted new ideas or new paradigms. Not only was Galileo criticized by the church, he was criticized by most scientists of his day.

[NJ_gent]

"Generally, if not always, the interview process will give you all you need to know about whether a person is actually qualified."

Judging by this guy's short and eventful time with NASA, I'd say someone either forgot to interview him, or the interviewer was as nutty as he is. By the way, who on Earth came up with the brilliant idea of sticking a 24-year old guy in charge of anything at NASA? A tech, engineer, or scientist I could understand (some of those guys end up with multiple doctorates before they're 25), but when you're going to appoint someone, how about appointing someone whose resume isn't listing Hardees as a reference from the past five years?

[clawrence3]

Only those "ideas" as set forth in the AP Style manual, you know, the very manual that a public affairs officers is supposed to have expertise in.

[antceecee]

From Jim Robinson's statement on FR's main page....
" (snip) Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.

Our God-given liberty and freedoms are not negotiable."

In view of this statement, why would FR need or want a repugnant resident TROLL?

[Steve_Seattle]

"One of the least savory aspects of the current administraiton is its arrant cronyism. It appears Harriet Myers and Michael Brown were only the tip of the iceberg."

Post #58 said it best, but I'll reiterate. Cronyism is rampant in politics at every level; it is hardly a unique characteristic of this administration. What is different is that the press applies a different standard to Bush than to Democratic administrations, creating the impression that the Bush admin is uniquely guilty of cronyism.

[Right Wing Professor]

So what is factually incorrect in what she posted?

[clawrence3]

We disagree that the pre-requisite for a junior public affairs officer is "Knowledge of the subject matter (in this case, science)" - I'm curious to hear what your pre-requisite is for White House interns.

[wolficatZ]

[Steve_Seattle]

The point is that this guy obviously was not appointed for his qualifications; he did not "slip through." This was a case - very common in both parties, admittedly deplorable - of the system being greased for a political hack. What's different about this is that the press is giving it so much attention.

[DJ MacWoW]

In view of this statement, why would FR need or want a repugnant resident TROLL?

I don't know but the Boss keeps her around for us to "play" with and occaisionally suspends for infractions.

[Right Wing Professor]

Cronyism is rampant in politics at every level; it is hardly a unique characteristic of this administration.

No doubt. I publicly castigated Clinton when he put lesbian activist Roberta Achtenberg in at HUD, and she started giving merit raises for membership in lesbian organizations. But "we're no worse than the last lot" is not much of a defense.

Bush has been peculiarly vulnerable to making particularly bad crony appoinments. Head of FEMA? Supreme Court Justice? And in the present case, where there has already been disturbing evidence the administration is anti-science, we have an apparent Young-Earth Creationist working at NASA and editing web pages on cosmology?

[NJ_gent]

"People needs to realize that most scientific principles are "theories" because to prove them as fact would take many centuries."

Any real scientist will tell you that there's no such thing as "scientific fact" or absolute "proof". You can provide substantial evidence for a scientific hypothesis and subject it to enough peer review to get it to the status of an accepted theory. If you have enough testing and the math holds up to scrutiny, you may even see it become a scientific law. However, no real man of science will claim that even the laws of science are absolute and beyond question. Anyone who claims to have absolute proof of anything is just begging to be shown to be wrong.

If nothing else, a hypothesis can always be proposed to show how you could be wrong wherein some exotic substance or concept is used. You can even work the math in such a way that the idea makes sense and is at least possible, even if incredibly unlikely. The only way to "prove" something in science is to completely discredit every single possible other explanation that is ever and could ever be proposed. Such a thing is not possible; ergo no "proof" in science.

[Right Wing Professor]

Ping.

(Not directly evolution-related, but I wonder why he insisted the Big Bang must be referred to as the Big Bang Theory? Sound familiar?)

[clawrence3]

You mean other than George C. Deutsch is NOT a “presidential” appointee and that Bush knew how to get out of Viet Nam but not Iraq? Or, her “theory” had this resume padding, college dropout, Republican Party activist had been appointed in the Clinton administration:

1. Congress would be holding televised hearings now.

2. Fox news and CNN would have the event in screaming headlines, with streamers about it at least every half-hour for several weeks afterwards.

3. Every television and radio network would have at least a 45 second segment about the resignation for at least 3 consecutive days, on their prime time news.

4. Most Republicans would be calling the appointment an impeachable offense.

5. The story would be played up on local TV news in Pittsburgh as soon as our Super Bowl mania dies down a little bit.