A Young Bush Appointee Resigns His Post at NASA

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

[MurryMom]

Who are the others you refer to?

What's the difference between Viet Nam and Iraq?

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

[orionblamblam]

> This story is irrelevent, and unworthy of any serious person's time.

So, since *you* are spending time on it, I guess that means... ?

> Some kid lied on his resume, got caught, got fired.

Actually, he did not come to the publics attention for lying on his resume. He came to the publics attention for trying to make NASA sign up to Creationism. Doing that made people take a closer look at him.

[clawrence3]

Could you try explaining that s l o w e r for orionblamblam?

[orionblamblam]

> He was simply enforcing the AP Style Manual on NASA's web site -

Wrong.

[indcons]

Well said

[DesertSapper]

thus . . . putting "theory" after each mention of "the Big Bang" would be . . . CORRECT.

[Conan the Librarian]

Yes...Fred Hoyle would be first to agree about it being a theory.

[orionblamblam]

So it's your contention that *every* *single* *idea* should have "theory" appended onto it?

[orionblamblam]

> What specific "expertise" are you requesting of junior public affairs officers?


Knowledge of the subject matter (in this case, science), would be a dandy start.

[DJ MacWoW]

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

By being trained for 2 years on a plane that they phased out and it would take 2 years to retrain anyone on the replacement plane. By that time, his time would have been up. You need ALL the facts Commie Mommy, not just one that suits your twisted agenda.

[MurryMom]

If 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.

[Steve_Seattle]

It's a fact that most scientific theories are eventually refined, superseded, or abandoned - even theories that have stood for centuries. But people like you always talk as if our present state of knowledge is the last word, and I find that infuriating. In my opinion, smugness is the antithesis of the scientific spirit.

[NJ_gent]

"Does anyone know (1) if Bush personally had anything to do with this appointment;"

I would assume that, at some level, the President has some involvement with a Presidential appointment, but I haven't claimed he ever even met this guy. More than likely, people like this are chosen by people who work in the administration and the President, trusting their judgement, simply signs off on them. It's probably not feasible for the President to do his own research on every single appointee (he certainly has bigger fish to fry), but he should really work hard to ensure those telling him to appoint people are doing their jobs properly.

"(2) what this guy's role actually was? Was he upper-level, mid-level, low-level? How prominent was his position at NASA?"

He was apparently prominent enough to rile up some people over at NASA, including a certain climatologist who got slapped around a bit the other day here on FR. It doesn't sound like he was anyone directly high-level, but he obviously has to be known by someone to get the appointment consideration at all. Ergo, even if he had little official authority, he probably had the ear of a few higher up on the food chain. As such, when he starts making demands (the changes to the website and such), it's not necessarily possible to simply ignore him.

[mnehring]

Lets not forget that people ignore the fact that, according to National Guard records, Bush tried to put in for Vietnam service twice and was turned down because we were loosing too many inexperienced pilots. He didn't try to get out of Nam, he tried to go.

[Steve_Seattle]

Nice try, but this kind of partisan appointment happens all the time, in both parties.

[DJ MacWoW]

Yes he did but Commie Mommy won't believe it. Not even if she held the paper in her hand.

[orionblamblam]

So it's your contention that the best scientific knowledge we have on hand should be subordinated to superstition? I guess I can see the reasoning. The science might change, but the superstition... that's forever.

"... The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator." It continued: "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue."

[Steve_Seattle]

I can understand a thorough vetting of a Supreme Court nominee or the head of an agency, but this guy sounds very mid-level. I've been involved in many job hires over the years, and I've never called a college or university to confirm that an applicant actually attended or graduated from there. We assume people are telling the truth on theire resumes, although we also assume that some things are padded and made to look like a bigger deal than they were. Generally, if not always, the interview process will give you all you need to know about whether a person is actually qualified.

[Herakles]

Take it from me, even when you don't pad your resume, people think you can't possibly be that smart, and so they believe you are padding your resume! So, don't try to excel. But when you are just mediocre, that's OK.

One of my friends who graduated from MIT and has something like 50 classified patents on submarine reactors prefers to say "stay home, drink beer, eat pizza, watch TV". He's right!

[Lunatic Fringe]

Actually, the evidence so strongly supports the Big Bang Theory, that the word "theory" does harm to the science behind it. The principles of the Big Bang have been confirmed by a wide variety of observations. No other theory comes close to explaining observations of space. In many scientific circles, the Big Bang is now called "Standard Cosmology."