Brown, Myers... Deutsch? Another unqualified Bush appointee resigns
 

I don't know who here has heard about this, but it recently came to light that a certain Mr. George Deutsch, a 24 year old political appointee working in NASA's PR department has been pushing the Bush administration's pro-creationist view into NASA. George Deutsch was appointed to the job for his loyal help on the 2004 Bush campaign.

From the New York Times:
There's more. He has apparently outright said that his job is to make the Bush administration look good. From The New York Times:
Anyways, yesterday, after a good bit of public outcry against George Deutsch and his attempts to put a political spin on science, and the discovery that he had falsified his resume, stating that he had graduated from Texas A&M when he had in fact not done so, he was forced to resign:

Again, from The New York Times:
Consider it a victory for the scientific community... But the concerning thing is another Bush appointee resigning after another scandal involving another falsified resume. First FEMA's Brown, then Harriet Myers (admittedly not a scandal nor a falsified resume, but another case of an unqualified political appointee), and now this guy... Is it just me, or does there seem to be a huge rash of totally unqualified and dubiously appointed political appointees coming out of the Bush administration? I don't think for a second that the Democrats or anyone else don't also use political appointees, but it seems that there's an incredible number of them coming out of the Bush administration, causing problem after problem. I don't care who you are or what party you come from, but that's unacceptable. Not only is the administration seemingly rampantly appointing wholly unqualified people into important posts, but he's trying to put a spin on science as well. Not acceptable.

To paraphrase Ratbastid, it seems like the wheels are falling off the Bush train.

Woo hoo, I've been paraphrased!

On this particular issue, It's almost impossible to be partisan. Fact is, Clinton was as big a buddy-appointer as Bush. It's just that his appointees never got caught being utterly incompetent. They may well have been incompetent, mind you, but they didn't get busted like this.

For some reason Bush's people can't even play competent competently. Maybe they're too cocky to care?

When did they prove the "Big Bang" actually happened? If it hasn't been proved, isn't it a theory? If it is a theory, why is it wrong to state it is a theory? If it is not wrong to state it as a theory, why is this news worthy?

The wheels are falling off of something. Not the Bush admin. but perhaps reason and logic.

Yeah, I know that both sides are just as guilty. The point of my post was that appointeeism (is that a word?) isnt acceptable, from any party.

The blatant politicizing of it and saying it's to make the Bush administration look good is what's wrong with it. Falls into the same camp as intelligent design. It's pushing an agenda.

What???

I don't understand. Is it a theory or not?

Depends on how it is used.

If I come out and say our topic today is the Big Bang Theory, and we talk about it, it seems kind of redundant and sounds stupid if every time I mention Big Bang I have to add "theory", as such was ordered.

I have already established in the beginning it is theory and thus I would feel I wouldn't need to keep pointing it out. I believe people are intelligent enough to realize it is only theory, without my having to make that point every time I say "Big Bang".......(oops) theory.

Let's not get sucked into the rhetorical game of picking one unassailable point and using that to justify myriad insanities.

Yes, the Big Bang is a theory. A well-supported theory, the most scientifically plausible theory, but a theory. Going to excessive lengths to point out that it's a theory smacks of creationism, which has no basis in science.

None of this changes the fact that a political appointee's job should NOT be "to make the president look good".

I think I understand. Kinda like when they say budget cuts, when they really mean cuts in the rate of growth. Because you shouldn't have to say cuts in the rate of growth when you can say budget cuts, everyone knows what it means... accept...when someone is talking about a real budget cut.

Oops, there goes another wheel.

Oh, my...there I go again...getting sucked into a rhetorical game of picking on an unassailiable point and using that to justify myriad insanitiies. Do they have a patch or something for that?

Political appointees serve "at the pleasure of the President." Isn't that different from a career civil service employee or a career government employee?

If a political apointee doesn't have the Presidents "back" who does?

If you where President you would appoint people who had no loyalty to you, your agenda, or people who would make you look bad?

I feel another wheel coming off, can you save it? :eek:

Ace, I think that several of the Bush administration's appointments have, in fact, made our president "look bad." If politically motivated appointments are the norm for either party, shouldn't those individuals be required to have some competence in the position for which they have been appointed? I doubt this young man rose to the importance of congressional oversight in the appointment, but I think at minimum his resume should have been verified long before he was given the position.

The word theory is totally misused in the media and by most non-scientists.

A THEORY is an explanation based on evidence or experiment, it can be tested experimentally.

An HYPOTHESIS is a proposed explanation that has not yet been "proved" or tested.

Most people that say "theory" actually mean "hypothesis".

I agree.

I also understand that with power comes privilage. If I am in a position of power, certainly the people I trust the most may not be the best qualified for appointments, but I trust them. In a perfect situation the people I trust the most are also highly qualified. Sometimes they won't be, sometimes they will make mistakes. It happens regardless of party. I don't understand why people seem surprised by this.

I also understand that being in the right spot at the right time does wonders for your career. If you are young with no experience and you can get a good appointment or ride on someone's coat-tails and not screw-up, you can leap frog over others with more experience and knowledge. This happens also regardless of party. Also happens in the business world. Even if we don't like it, that the way the world is. Bush did not make these rules, so why do we pretend it is a bigger problem than it is?

Ace, you have provided excellent thoughts to consider. Returning to Sailor's OP, I sincerely doubt that Bush has been well served by several political appointments that were made or recommended by his administrative staff. The exception is Bush's recommendation of Miers. I give Bush full benefit for that fubar.

Wouldn't we all love to follow Michael Brown's selection to FEMA all the way back to it's source? Congress failed in doing their job of oversight in the confirmation hearing as well.

Simply claiming that it is business as usual lacks taking any responsibility for the problem. I have posted elsewhere that I believe political cronyism can be curtailed to some extent and without great difficulty via existing governmental structures.

Sometimes wishes come true. Is it possible that RealNews might be the return of investigative journalism? The text is far too long to post here, but for those that are interested...

Truth Out

Thank you for pointing that out. I wouldn't have been as nice. I'm sick of people misrepresenting the word 'theory' and it's only possible because the average American these days seems to have the general science knowledge of a toaster. At least we didn't get the standard 'it's not the Big Bang Law' crap tossed in there.

Don't they teach the difference between a hypothesis, theory, and a law on like the first day of 7th grade science? People who don't know what a theory is and what it's implications are have no business talking about scientific issues. It's like some moron who wants to talk politics but can't tell you the difference between the House and the Senate.

From your friendly neighborhood sceintific moron:

Who is responsible for coining the phrase "Big Bang Theory"? Wasn't me, I think it one of those highly educated scientific folks.

Can a hypothesis be a theory?
Can a hypothesis become a theory? If so, does it take a bite from a radioactive spider?
Can a theory be a hypothesis?
What come first the theory or hypothesis? Who gets to fertilize it?
Can theory be formed from emperical evidence, rather than experimental evidence?
Whats the difference between a guess from a Phd. and a guess from a janitor? A janitors work is published on bathroom walls, a Phd's is best used in bathroom stalls. :p

Thanks for trolling.

Agreed, what a useless and inane waste of the board.

You call someone a moron and expect they won't respond?

You imply a level of knowledge regarding the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, but when challenged you say I trolling?

I wonder what you will say next. I am sure you will have some creative names to call me. Sorry, but I don't get easily offended.

Ok. Anyways..

The word "theory" is applicable to all ideas that are testable by experimentation. They never become more than theories, just become well supported or unsupported theories. The Big Bang is a well supported theory.

~~~ ENTERING INTO THE COMMON LANGUAGE MODE ~~~
Enter into the common speak mode though, and "theory" becomes some sort of idea that someone just kinda had, ya know? As compares to a fact, which is proven idea..
So, if something is just, like, a theory, well I guess it doesn't mean much... huh.
~~~ LEAVING NOW ~~~

So, when people start adding the word "theory" to stuff blatantly, it is usually an attempt to undermine a scientifically supported idea by using a word that while is technically correct to use, the majority of people have an incorrect understanding of. When people say "evolution is theory, not a fact" they are trying to undermine it thusly.

That is what the Bush appointee was doing, among other things such as censoring members of NASA from making public statements about global warming (theory).

Blah. Good riddance to him!
Someone should really make a webpage combining all the different stories of bush appointees turning out to be screw ups, combining all the different statements made by bush that ended up being false (all the iraq WMDs, the various lines in State of the Union Addresses), combining the picture of how our economy has been doing, etc, etc. Placing all the different pieces together into one unified story of ineptness and deceit would be really a service to this country.

I don't doubt that there were other people more qualified than Deutsch for the appointment. However, if we want to criticize the guy and the Bush administration we should do it for the right reasons. Otherwise, critics loose credibility or prove the lack of credibility to begin with. The Big Bang Theory is in fact a theory. NPR is "liberal". And, political appointees are supposed to make their boss look good.

Which Deutsch did not. He made his boss look bad. Michael Brown is busy right now making Bush look very bad. That's the price you pay when you select weasels for important posts, they turn on you when you try to take them out.

Cronyism will likely always exist, but there are cronies who can actually do the job. Bush, instead, selected a college dropout.

Some of you may find this of interest. Perhaps not. Either way here it is.

The actual list is way to long, so check the link, below are a few examples from his appointees.

I post this just to show that the "wheels" did not fall off of Clinton's bus, just as they are not falling off of Bush's. When you are President you will always have people around who will make errors or people who are dishonest.

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/crime2.html