Jan 06 2009
Needless Sideshows
/Steps on soapbox
So, once again, I’m going to do what I very rarely do and delve into politics. Believe me, this is not my normal role. Not to give an opinion, so much, but to gauge your reaction. You see, there’s a blog I check out most days I’m at work. It’s not a favorite of mine, thought I have anything against Keith Cowling who runs it but because I think he considers himself a journalist and I find him a wee bit more biased (on a number of topics) than I enjoy. And because he tends to focus on the sensationalist. For most space news, I go to spacedaily.com . However, Cowling does keep his ear to the ground (often finding out things that are of interest to us at NASA before we do) and I can appreciate he isn’t afraid to state his mind.
However, since I got back, I’ve been reading about something that is really Keith’s forte: the NASA administrator and his future. Now, I don’t think it’s my place to tell you what I think of the job Griffin’s done, whether I thought he was an undervalued miracle worker or a egotistic despot or the whole gamut of possibilities in between. So I won’t.
There was some earlier discussion (in this same blog) about some differences between Griffin and Obama’s transition team (and, no, I have no idea of their validity nor do I care. I hate politics). However, the situation has taken on an odd, somewhat desperate cast. According to this entry , Scott Horowitz has put up a petition to keep Mike Griffin in his job. Now, whether I, personally, think this is tacky or not, I can’t help but wonder about the impact of this given that any noncomplimentary comment is deleted but the commentor’s name remains (I wonder if the commentors knew that at the time). Now, if one is presenting a petition stating X number of people really think Y, don’t you think it negates the impact if you had to delete comments of signees that disagreed with Y (or at least voiced reservations)? Of course, a counter petition also sprang up (this time anonymously) to get rid of Griffin and the owner of that is doing the same delete unwanted comments but keeping signees. Then, Griffin’s wife apparently sent out an email requesting support for the petition and help for him to retain his job - which the news agencies grabbed hold of and having a heyday with.
*Sigh*
Am I hopeless naive to think a job with as much importance and that requires so much technical and political expertise as NASA administrator be based on merit alone? That one’s record in the job, how well one performed the myriad impossible tasks that face a NASA administrator, be the one and only gauge necessary to retain or lose a job?
I’m sure many people have a strong opinion on Griffin here. But, whatever it may be, I can’t help but be grieved at how all this hoopla reflects on NASA. We’ve had enough headaches and bad press, thank you.
There are dedicated and serious people who work here, trying to do the best for this country. I think it’s a great pity that sideshows like this and Lisa Nowak’s unfortunate escapade are what people remember rather than the work we do.
/Steps off soapbox
Ooohh… I hate it when bloggers delete comments that disagree with them. I understand deleting spam.
I guess I don’t really get the petition thing but NASA’s internal politics never interested me.
I wouldn’t care if they had 200 various petitions and any other internal fiddle faddle, but this has hit the media and I just don’t think it reflects well on us at all.
In this case, it’s not just that the comments are deleted, but the name is left as if he/she supports the petition that deleted what was likely an unfavorable comment.
Stephanie, thanks for including me on your blog roll. This means a truckload to a baby blogger like me.
I’ve returned the favor, and not just because you reached down to pull me up a tad, but because your blog is excellent.
Cheers!
-Brian
Actually, my blogroll is more for me than anyone. I put on the list those blogs I never want to miss so I can make sure to hit them every day.
You wouldn’t be on it if I hadn’t liked what I saw when I checked it out.
And thanks for the compliment.
I won’t totally embarrass myself here by trying to appear as though I have full knowledge of the situation you’re referring to (this is possibly the only smart thing I’ll do all day!), however I will say that it drives me more insane than I am already when people feel they must screw the truth pooch in order to make a strong case for whatever position they’re supporting. They go waaaaay beyond simple marketing/PR spin. So irritating!
You won’t get an argument from me. People who say they’re on the side of good so it justifies lying or secrecy clearly have already been lying to themselves. (Not saying it does or doesn’t apply to this situation, but in general).
Good and honesty are best mates and, if they’re not, someone’s doing it wrong. Thanks for the comment, Chat.
“Am I hopeless naive to think a job with as much importance and that requires so much technical and political expertise as NASA administrator be based on merit alone? That one’s record in the job, how well one performed the myriad impossible tasks that face a NASA administrator, be the one and only gauge necessary to retain or lose a job?”
Not at all. I agree this should be how things work BUT, as you already know (and this is probably why you hate politics), there is always a popularity/ likability/put-a-spin-on-everything-so-it-favors-you factor, especially with something as big as NASA. It’s the unfortunate, but common way of the world.
I love it when bloggers are passionate about what they are writing about. You can tell this has you stirred up today. LOL
BTW, I don’t know how the “Ask a Rocket Scientist” thing is supposed to go, but I have a question. I’d like to know what you think of the Big Bang Theory. Is it possible that Creationists and Evolutionists are both accurate? Is it possible that a spiritual being caused a bang in the atmosphere to make chaos orderly?
Davida
I have very little to say on the Big Bang Theory because it’s not my area of expertise; that’s more an astronomy thing than my bag. I really only know enough about the theory to have an informed opinion and I would irresponsible (as a Rocket Scientist) to do so.
The evolution/creation question, to me, is different from the God/Big Bang question.
There are facts I’m very confident of: the earth is very old, older than several billion years. Dinosaurs existed. Man is relatively young.
Now, the unassailable conflict between Creationism and Evolution, in my opinion, is all but manufactured. I have no issue whatsoever believing in a higher power and having confidence in evolution. To me there is no conflict. I don’t have any real idea how life began but I see no reason to preclude a higher power getting it started, nor, if He/She/They) didn’t do so directly, do I see that negating His/Her/Their existence(s).
As for whether God created a Big Bang, I haven’t any idea. I don’t see why not.
I’ve been reading about one of the petitions on Bad Astronomy. Phil Plait is cringing at the inappropriateness of the whole thing. I agree, very tawdry and the last thing a vitally-important government agency with an image problem needs.
Attygnorris - the conflict between creation and evolution is mostly the fault of intolerant fundamentalists who won’t accept anything not found in the book of Genesis. If they’d quit trying to weasel creationism into the public schools under the pseudoscientific label “Intelligent Design”, there would be no real public-policy level debate about it at all. The ID crowd is more than welcome to produce a scientific theory to explain their speculation, but until they do, it ain’t science. But they don’t do that - because the Intelligent Design movement is a political agenda, not a scientific one.
I hear you, Gumby.