silkworm Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 Looks like Bush planted a flunkie in NASA and changed their policies about talking about global warming and making it clear that the Big Bang is "just a theory". This whole nightmare ended when Texas A&M called NASA and told them they've never heard of the guy, so he resigned. The story here: A Young Bush Appointee Resigns His Post at NASA George C. Deutsch' date=' the young presidential appointee at NASA who told public affairs workers to limit reporters' access to a top climate scientist and told a Web designer to add the word "theory" at every mention of the Big Bang, resigned yesterday, agency officials said. Mr. Deutsch's resignation came on the same day that officials at Texas A&M University confirmed that he did not graduate from there, as his résumé on file at the agency asserted. Officials at NASA headquarters declined to discuss the reason for the resignation. "Under NASA policy, it is inappropriate to discuss personnel matters," said Dean Acosta, the deputy assistant administrator for public affairs and Mr. Deutsch's boss. The resignation came as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was preparing to review its policies for communicating science to the public. The review was ordered Friday by Michael D. Griffin, the NASA administrator, after a week in which many agency scientists and midlevel public affairs officials described to The New York Times instances in which they said political pressure was applied to limit or flavor discussions of topics uncomfortable to the Bush administration, particularly global warming. "As we have stated in the past, NASA is in the process of revising our public affairs policies across the agency to ensure our commitment to open and full communications," the statement from Mr. Acosta said. The statement said the resignation of Mr. Deutsch was "a separate matter." Mr. Deutsch, 24, was offered a job as a writer and editor in NASA's public affairs office in Washington last year after working on President Bush's re-election campaign and inaugural committee, according to his résumé. No one has disputed those parts of the document. According to his résumé, Mr. Deutsch received a "Bachelor of Arts in journalism, Class of 2003." Yesterday, officials at Texas A&M said that was not the case. "George Carlton Deutsch III did attend Texas A&M University but has not completed the requirements for a degree," said an e-mail message from Rita Presley, assistant to the registrar at the university, responding to a query from The Times. Repeated calls and e-mail messages to Mr. Deutsch on Tuesday were not answered. Mr. Deutsch's educational record was first challenged on Monday by Nick Anthis, who graduated from Texas A&M last year with a biochemistry degree and has been writing a Web log on science policy, scientificactivist.blogspot.com. After Mr. Anthis read about the problems at NASA, he said in an interview: "It seemed like political figures had really overstepped the line. I was just going to write some commentary on this when somebody tipped me off that George Deutsch might not have graduated." He posted a blog entry asserting this after he checked with the university's association of former students. He reported that the association said Mr. Deutsch received no degree. A copy of Mr. Deutsch's résumé was provided to The Times by someone working in NASA headquarters who, along with many other NASA employees, said Mr. Deutsch played a small but significant role in an intensifying effort at the agency to exert political control over the flow of information to the public. Such complaints came to the fore starting in late January, when James E. Hansen, the climate scientist, and several midlevel public affairs officers told The Times that political appointees, including Mr. Deutsch, were pressing to limit Dr. Hansen's speaking and interviews on the threats posed by global warming. Yesterday, Dr. Hansen said that the questions about Mr. Deutsch's credentials were important, but were a distraction from the broader issue of political control of scientific information. "He's only a bit player," Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Deutsch. " The problem is much broader and much deeper and it goes across agencies. That's what I'm really concerned about." "On climate, the public has been misinformed and not informed," he said. "The foundation of a democracy is an informed public, which obviously means an honestly informed public. That's the big issue here."[/quote'] This Hariet Myers (sp?) complex that our president has has made me puke all over myself in the past, and just has again. Just now. I'm covered in my own puke. Any thoughts?
Sisyphus Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 I wonder if the Arabian Horse Racing Association has heard of him.
-Demosthenes- Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 We could solve a lot of problems if everyone knew what science was. For example ID/evolution/Big Bang conflicts wouldn't be so bad if we could explain the difference between the layman term "theory" (hunch or guess) and the scientific definition "theory" (idea support by fact, ect).
john5746 Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 This is the President that wants to improve Science and Math education. I hope he doesn't appoint a czar over the project!
swansont Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 Looks like Bush planted a flunkie in NASA and changed their policies about talking about global warming and making it clear that the Big Bang is "just a theory". This whole nightmare ended when Texas A&M called NASA and told them they've never heard of the guy' date=' so he resigned. The story here: ... This Hariet Myers (sp?) complex that our president has has made me puke all over myself in the past, and just has again. Just now. I'm covered in my own puke. Any thoughts?[/quote'] I don't see anything more than a "get him a job as a thank-you" move here — I think it's a stretch to call him a plant. I get more annoyed at giving someone with a journalism degree (or not even) the task of writing science stories. The sad part is the "ideology driving science" that is part of politics. The current administration just seems to be pretty good at it.
pcs Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 If it bothers the other side so much, then they should...well...win the election. The larger question here is what role is appropriate for PAO in the world of Big Science.
silkworm Posted February 9, 2006 Author Posted February 9, 2006 If it bothers the other side so much, then they should...well...win the election. The larger question here is what role is appropriate for PAO in the world of Big Science. I would just like to mention that to imply that science should change with politics is ridiculous. Nature is nondebatable and so science needs to avoid public policies in order to reach their conclusions as accurately as possible. To say it's somewhat justifiable to undermine Evolution and the Big Bang because the people who criticize it won the election is absolutely ridiculous. Evolution is not untrue from 2000-2008, it's true always. If you think it can perhaps you're on the wrong forum entirely.
Sisyphus Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 If it bothers the other side so much, then they should...well...win[/i'] the election. The larger question here is what role is appropriate for PAO in the world of Big Science. I can't imagine what possible motivation there might be for saying such a thing beyond purely being annoying.
pcs Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 I would just like to mention that to imply that science should change with politics is ridiculous. And I would just like to say that I said "Big Science," not "science." Nature is nondebatable... That's a bit too religious a claim for my tastes. How about we say that verifiable empirical knowledge is by and large dry and widely accepted? ...and so science needs to avoid public policies in order to reach their conclusions as accurately as possible. Science is simply a methodology for expanding a set of empirical knowledge. Whatever definition your using doesn't seem to jive with this one. To say it's somewhat justifiable to undermine Evolution and the Big Bang because the people who criticize it won the election is absolutely ridiculous. No it's not, it's a pretty obvious observation of political reality. Your position is not electorally electric; and I can't think of any state-wide or national elected official who's won or lost on the issue. And apparantly the coalition between folks who agree with you and others of more left-leaning causes hasn't helped much in the past six years. Evolution is not untrue from 2000-2008, it's true always. Evolution and big bang cosmology are scientific fact. Whether or not they are true boils down to a philosophical question with, unsurprisingly, public policy implications. If you think it can perhaps you're on the wrong forum entirely. Are you suggesting that people who disagree with Scientism aren't welcome here?
pcs Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 I can't imagine what possible motivation there might be for saying such a thing beyond purely being annoying. How about to elevate the discussion beyond how much this Adminstration disgusts you personally?
silkworm Posted February 10, 2006 Author Posted February 10, 2006 Quote: Nature is nondebatable... That's a bit too religious a claim for my tastes. How about we say that verifiable empirical knowledge is by and large dry and widely accepted? Nature as in our actual environment instead of our fictional one. We can't make a public policy outlawing gravity or death and expect it to have any affect on either. All we can do is try to understand and cope with it. Science is actually just the process of using natural explainations for phenomena.
silkworm Posted February 10, 2006 Author Posted February 10, 2006 George C. Deutsch' date=' the NASA press aide who resigned Tuesday amid claims that he had tried to keep the agency's top climate scientist from speaking publicly about global warming, defended himself publicly Thursday. Speaking to Texas radio station WTAW-AM and then to The New York Times, Deutsch said the scientist, James E. Hansen, exaggerated the threat of warming and tried to cast the Bush administration's response to it as inadequate. Deutsch, 24, also denied lying about having a college degree and trying to inject religion into some NASA Web presentations. "I have never been told to censor science, to squelch anything or to insert religion into any issue," he told the radio reporter, Brian Cain. Deutsch attended Texas A&M University until he joined President Bush's campaign in 2004. After seeing a transcript of the comments, Hansen said, "This is so wacky that it deserves little response." Starting in late January with several interviews in The New York Times, Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, and several career NASA public-affairs officials and scientists complained about what they said were intensifying efforts by political appointees in NASA, including Deutsch, to control more closely his lectures and Web presentations. Contrary to his résumé on file with NASA, Deutsch never graduated from Texas A&M, the Times reported Wednesday. On Thursday, in an interview with the Times, Deutsch said he had written the résumé in anticipation of graduating.[/quote'] The quality of lying nowadays is so much less than the past.
pcs Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 Nature as in our actual environment instead of our fictional one. Your use of the term "fictional" is simply too inaccurate and abrasive for me to accept. Surely we should work out these issues of semantics before moving forward. We can't make a public policy outlawing gravity or death and expect it to have any affect on either. This parallel is specious. Deutsch's memo did not refer to any ongoing scientific research program or product. The website is an arm of public affairs, and that's where the issue lies. If you want to discuss silly thing like whether or not bascule disagrees with gravity or Severian wants to ban gamma rays, then perhaps Pseudoscience is a better forum. If you want to talk about what role is appropriate for PAO in Big Science, let's go on. Science is actually just the process of using natural explainations for phenomena. Yes, I can restate my own language as well.
pcs Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 The quality of lying nowadays is so much less than the past. How so? Deutsch says he wrote his resume in anticipation of graduating. What's the big deal?
silkworm Posted February 10, 2006 Author Posted February 10, 2006 From the above I was responding to your statements and not the story. How so? Deutsch says he wrote his resume in anticipation of graduating. What's the big deal? Hey, if that's all good I'm anticipating a PhD in Chemistry from Berkely. I'm updating right now. Thanks.
john5746 Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 The larger question here is what role is appropriate for PAO in the world of Big Science. You could start another thread if the original question bothers you. Based on this incident, I think the role should be very limited, since they don't even do background checks.
silkworm Posted February 10, 2006 Author Posted February 10, 2006 Man Who Left NASA Says He's Under Attack COLLEGE STATION' date=' Texas - A staffer who resigned from NASA after he was accused of restricting access to a noted climate scientist said Thursday he was targeted because of his political ties. George C. Deutsch, 24, resigned from the agency's public relations department earlier this week. "What you do have is hearsay coming from a handful of people who have clear partisan ties and they are really coming after me as a Bush appointee," he told radio station WTAW. "I was an easy target. I was low-hanging fruit." The New York Times reported Wednesday that Deutsch attempted to limit reporters' access to Jim Hansen, a noted NASA climate scientist, and insisted that a Web designer insert the word "theory" before any mention of the Big Bang. Deutsch denied the allegations. "I have never been told to censor science, to squelch anything or to insert religion into any issue, absolutely not," said the former Bush campaign worker. [/quote'] It seems to be accelerating.
pcs Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 Hey, if that's all good I'm anticipating a PhD in Chemistry from Berkely. I'm updating right now. Thanks. Are you? Are you or were you ever enrolled in a PhD program at Berkeley?
pcs Posted February 10, 2006 Posted February 10, 2006 It seems to be accelerating. To where? And relative to what?
JustStuit Posted February 11, 2006 Posted February 11, 2006 How so? Deutsch says he wrote his resume in anticipation of graduating. What's the big deal? The problem is that after he knew was not going to graduate he is required to remove that from his application. Surely after working for a while he would realize that he should tell them. The big deal is he knew he had submitted false information and continued to work knowing it was a major factor in getting his job. It sounds like he used that to try to get out of trouble anyway. I'm glad you have more faith in the human race than I do. (I like this quote, I remember reading it on here but I forget who said it.)
bascule Posted February 11, 2006 Posted February 11, 2006 http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11240405/ "It is not proven fact; it is opinion. Yes, the scientific community by and large may share this opinion, but that doesn't make it correct" "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 -- the other half of the argument" The IDiots just won't give up...
pcs Posted February 11, 2006 Posted February 11, 2006 The problem is that after he knew was not going to graduate he is required to remove that from his application. Required to? I don't recall any statute or case law requiring someone to keep an up to date resume. Surely after working for a while he would realize that he should tell them. Who's to say he didn't? The big deal is he knew he had submitted false information and continued to work knowing it was a major factor in getting his job. 1. You don't know what role his resume played in securing the job, or what 2. You don't know what Deutsch knew about his resume when he It sounds like he used that to try to get out of trouble anyway. Or perhaps he's telling the truth. I think a few of the resumes I have on file on Madison Ave are sorely out of date as well, and you have to wonder how many people on Monster actually update their resumes on a regular basis. Either way, the employer has more than enough opportunity to clear up these issues during the hiring process, and like I said, we have no idea what role his resume played in securing the appointment--if any at all. I'm glad you have more faith in the human race than I do. I don't know, perhaps I simply have more experience in the working world than you do.
pcs Posted February 11, 2006 Posted February 11, 2006 The IDiots just won't give up... Is that the new secularist strategy? Hope the other side gives up?
JustStuit Posted February 11, 2006 Posted February 11, 2006 Why don't I just tell NASA I have an engineering degree from MIT. I'm planning to anyway. If I get accepted I don't think it will matter whether or not I actually got it. I'm pretty sure lying on your resume is not a good thing. I'm not sure if it's illegal but I think we all knew he knew he should have told them. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that.
pcs Posted February 11, 2006 Posted February 11, 2006 Why don't I just tell NASA I have an engineering degree from MIT. I'm planning to anyway. You could. See how far it gets you. On the other hand our friend George seems to have overcome the inaccuracy of his resume. If I get accepted I don't think it will matter whether or not I actually got it. I'm pretty sure lying on your resume is not a good thing. Willful misinformation on a resume is fraud. However, it is not clear that this is the case here. And like I said, you don't have enough information to judge Deutsch. I'm not sure if it's illegal but I think we all knew he knew he should have told them. Do you arrive at that conclusion based on personal experience or did you just pluck it out of thin air? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that. Just faith.
Recommended Posts