NASA's foremost mission? Improve relations with Muslims.

[Skeptic Ginger]

And people so readily post about.

How is discussing a problem which discourages critical thinking a problem on a forum about education promoting critical thinking?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Investigate what? What is there to investigate which isn't already under discussion?

Well for starters, the OP is about the Faux News filtered version of a 20 minute interview on AlJazeera with the head of NASA. Faux News has a well documented mission to distort the news and come up with talking points that promote the goal of anti-Obama messages. I can't take on face value the out of context version of the statements as reported in Faux, without making an effort to investigate the actual interview comments, in context, for myself. Until now, I hadn't had time to do that.

I note you aren't willing to claim that it's inaccurate. So why is the simplicity of this statement relevant?

Well, I'm glad you asked.

Faux has distorted the language of "foremost" in the actual interview. The comment was not made implying NASA's foremost mission overall was reaching out to Muslim countries, as if the space missions were secondary. Bolden was talking specifically about "expanding international relationships" and in that context reaching out to the Muslim world was foremost. It's called building roads to peace.

The interviewer sought a clarification asking Bolden if NASA's mission was one of diplomacy and Bolden immediately corrects that misconception pointing out the benefit to space research of input from the great minds in all countries, not just our own.

There's nothing out of context here. That's a weak excuse, revealed as such because you can't provide the context which would actually change its meaning. Oh, you might be able to construct a hypothetical one, but you can't find it from the actual interview.

It would appear you've made a false prediction here.

You keep saying that, and it keeps being irrelevant. I don't care what meaning you attribute to the statement, I care about what the statement actually meant. And you seek to avoid that at every turn.

Every turn?

In fact, you appear to have abandoned the defense of his comments completely here, and are now only attacking critics of his comments.

You would have done much better to claim that the issue is unimportant and that he was just playing politics to Al Jazeera's audience.

This hyperbole is over the top. I said I wanted to look more closely at the actual comments vs the Faux News version. It was a 20 minute interview. I've now actually listened to the interview and have made my comments.

So stop making up stories.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Which may indeed have been what he was doing. Unfortunately, Bolden doesn't understand that in an interconnected world like ours, what you say to audience A is actually heard by everyone else too. In using the phrasing he used, he really made it seem like this (the outreach) was one of the most important goals of his agency. That made it easier for people who don't like Obama or his space policy, to ridicule the whole policy. So the more practical aspects of the policy get torpedoed because Bolden was trying to kiss up to our "friends" in the Middle East. That is why the WH is trying to run way from clarify Bolden's statements.

I really have to wonder how many of you actually listened to the interview as opposed to only reading the Faux interpretation of it? Maybe you should.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well for starters, the OP is about the Faux News filtered version of a 20 minute interview on AlJazeera with the head of NASA.

"Faux News". How terribly clever, never heard that one before.

Look, the whole interview has already been linked here. The bits that Fox News didn't include have already been discussed. If you're stuck on Fox News, you've got a vendetta that the rest of us just don't care about, and which has no relevance to the issue of what he actually said.

I can't take on face value the out of context version of the statements as reported in Faux, without making an effort to investigate the actual interview comments, in context, for myself. Until now, I hadn't had time to do that.

Then why the hell were you participating in this thread? Seriously, Skeptic Ginger, this is an admission that you were just talking out your ***.

The interviewer sought a clarification asking Bolden if NASA's mission was one of diplomacy and Bolden immediately corrects that misconception pointing out the benefit to space research of input from the great minds in all countries, not just our own.

It doesn't provide context (something that must precede the statement, or it isn't context, which is what I asked for). And it's not really a clarification either, it's a backtrack. It conflicts with what he said before. My guess is he realized that what he first said was stupid after the interviewer's follow-up question. Just like Robert Gibbs did. That's the most charitable reading.

Your best defense of this guy would be that he said something in an interview that he thought his audience would like to hear, but it didn't have any significance. But instead, for reasons unknown, you've decided to actually try to defend a stupid comment as if it was actually some sort of wisdom, when the folks it supposedly came from (the White House) don't want to touch it with a 10 foot pole.

 

[Skeptic]

It's not the 'caveman' aspect I'm talking about at all here. It's the testosterone with no place to go. It's the low self esteem that these guys try to fix by playing warrior in the terrorist training camp.

Awwwwwwwww.... poor low self-esteem folks. THAT is their problem.

Hey, that's why I beat my wife and keep her pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen. My low self-esteem doesn't allow me to have a woman with any achievements next to me. I'm sure you understand, and that you support my wife in doing her best to raise my self esteem by being my rag-mat. In fact I think it'll be a good idea for NASA to send some convicted wife-beater to space as an astronaut. You know, to raise wife-beaters' self-esteem so they'll stop doing it.

You see the problem with your logic? Your long-range psychological analysis can excuse and explain away ANY horrible thing ANYBODY does by attributing it to something awful the victim did to their "self esteem". But you do not apply this "get out of jail free" card equally to all offenders. Only certain "sexy" offenders -- those who kill Americans and/or Israelies and/or Jews in terrorist attacks, for instance -- receive this lenient treatment from you. Others, such as wife-beaters, rapists, or common criminals, do not. Why? Why always excuse the American-killers and Jew-killers with dime-store psychoanalysis, instead of excusing, say, wife-beaters?

 

[Chris L]

I really have to wonder how many of you actually listened to the interview as opposed to only reading the Faux interpretation of it?

The part of the interview in question happens within the first couple of minutes or so of the interview. It's not hard at all to find or listen to. So no, I didn't hear this from "Faux", Fox, or even Vixen news.

 

[theprestige]

So no, I didn't hear this from "Faux", Fox, or even Vixen news.

Vixen news? Clearly your cable package is better than mine!

 

[Skeptic]

The suggesting here is that ,when it comes to Muslims, the reason for their murderous attacks that kill tons of innocent civilians is low self-esteem.

But the world is full of low self-esteem people. Yet when it comes to other religions, all of them apart from a few murderous psychopaths, manage to not take out their low self-esteem on others in such a way.

Isn't the bottom line of this "explanation" that the real reason for Muslim violence is that they're murderous psychopaths?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The part of the interview in question happens within the first couple of minutes or so of the interview. It's not hard at all to find or listen to. So no, I didn't hear this from "Faux", Fox, or even Vixen news.

Then if you listened to the relevant part of the interview, you should have recognized the discussion was about NASA'a specific role in international relations, but the discussion was not about the main aspects of NASA'a mission statement regarding space exploration.

The director is in an interview with an international news agency and he talked about the role NASA has in the international community. That's appropriate.


Only Faux News and the neocons in the country and on the board here want to make this into something it wasn't.

 

[Skeptic]

Oh, something else: why Muslims in particular? Surely there are other groups which also suffer from low self-esteem. For example, underemployed overweight balding middle-aged guys with a lousy sonofabitch of a boss, which is a rather large group of people. Shouldn't their self-esteem be raised as well?

An artist's conception of what NASA's new mission plan should look like:

 

[applecorped]

Only Faux News and the neocons in the country and on the board here want to make this into something it wasn't.

I made it into a paper airplane and then a broach and then a pterodactyl.

 

[Chris L]

Only Faux News and the neocons in the country and on the board here want to make this into something it wasn't.

Here's the problem. Some of us actually like many aspects of the president's space policy. In answering the question of why he was in the Middle East, Bolden stated that even before he became NASA administrator, the president had charged him with the three main tasks he laid out. Bolden was the one making it seem like a big deal, which is why the interviewer gave him a chance to back track a little. So no, it isn't Faux or those evil neo-cons who are the problem, Bolden is. He just didn't realize that his words would carry all the way back to the states, and that the opponents of the new space policy would (because it is such an obvious opening) use his words to ridicule the policy as a whole.

As someone who actually likes many aspects of the president's space policy, I'm a little disappointed in the president and his administrator for not understanding that their policy was in enough trouble (because there are too many people with a vested interest in the current one) without making stupid PR mistakes. Bolden's statement makes the president sound less than serious about what NASA is and does.

 

[theprestige]

Here's the problem. Some of us actually like many aspects of the president's space policy. In answering the question of why he was in the Middle East, Bolden stated that even before he became NASA administrator, the president had charged him with the three main tasks he laid out. Bolden was the one making it seem like a big deal, which is why the interviewer gave him a chance to back track a little. So no, it isn't Faux or those evil neo-cons who are the problem, Bolden is. He just didn't realize that his words would carry all the way back to the states, and that the opponents of the new space policy would (because it is such an obvious opening) use his words to ridicule the policy as a whole.

As someone who actually likes many aspects of the president's space policy, I'm a little disappointed in the president and his administrator for not understanding that their policy was in enough trouble (because there are too many people with a vested interest in the current one) without making stupid PR mistakes. Bolden's statement makes the president sound less than serious about what NASA is and does.

I'm sorry, but as a description of "the problem", this seems pretty incoherent.

First, opponents of the President's space policy have not lacked for "openings" to attack the President's space policy. As you yourself acknowledge, they've been attacking it on its merits (or lack thereof) for months before Bolden opened his mouth.

Second, given that opponents of the President's policy already have found ample excuses to criticize it, they don't really need to find one component of the policy to stand in as a scapegoat for all the others. As an example of how unserious the president's space policy is, it serves the critics well, but it's not the only one (just, perhaps, the most glaringly obvious). As yet another item on the critics' list of ways Obama has gotten his space policy wrong, it's certainly not out of place.

Did Bolden's remarks bolster criticism of the President's space policy? Yes. Did his remarks open some badly-needed back door to criticism, at a time when the critics were lacking a front door by which to enter? Not in the slightest.

What gets me is that in all this discussion, so many people seem to be tripping over themselves trying to patch up the PR debacle back home.

Personally, I'm wondering how Bolden's intended audience was supposed to react. I mean, how could he possibly have come across as anything other than an arrogant, condescending American jerk? To the extent that he was perceived as having been sincere, his remarks portray Americans as sincerely patronizing jerks. To the extent that he was perceived as having been insincere, his remarks portray Americans as insincere, pandering jerks.

I wonder how many moderate, democracy-loving Iranians, upon hearing such an insulting statement, became just a little less pro-West, and just a little more proud of their own government's recent advances in rocketry. I wonder also how they felt, two weeks later, when the White House finally admitted what must have been obvious to them all along: It's not even a real policy, but rather a cheap and ineffective bit of political theater.

Please note that the preceding two paragraphs criticize Bolden's remarks purely on their own terms, without once using them as an excuse to bash what Chris L seems to imply is an otherwise un-criticizable space policy.

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

I made it into a paper airplane and then a broach and then a pterodactyl.

Evidence?

 

[Chris L]

Prestige,
The point I was trying (unsuccessfully in your case) to make is that Bolden's statement moves the criticism (some of which I actually agree with) of the policy to another level. It makes the administration's efforts appear both condescending (as you pointed out) and not serious. That is a deadly combination in politics. While space enthusiasts might argue about the merits (or lack there of) of Flexible Path, the general public isn't going to get past "he's doing it for the Muslims". It makes a difficult case even tougher to make.

 

[applecorped]

Evidence?

Looks like I quit the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Prestige,
The point I was trying (unsuccessfully in your case) to make is that Bolden's statement moves the criticism (some of which I actually agree with) of the policy to another level. It makes the administration's efforts appear both condescending (as you pointed out) and not serious. That is a deadly combination in politics. While space enthusiasts might argue about the merits (or lack there of) of Flexible Path, the general public isn't going to get past "he's doing it for the Muslims". It makes a difficult case even tougher to make.

You are assuming the right wingers need any legitimate reasons for criticism. They don't. They distort legit issues to create outrage. And they are good at it and this is one of those cases.

This 'issue' is a distortion of the facts made into a manufactured thing to be outraged about. And the right winger masses suck it up like the babies at a teet.

The mistake the Democrats make is trying to walk on eggshells over these manufactured outrages. That is where they look stupid. In the case of Gibb's reply, he's the one making things look bad. Gibbs appears to be answering without any knowledge of the actual interview. And Gibbs takes the reporter's version of the interview as a factual interpretation of the comments. Of course it isn't "NASA'a mission" in the way the reporter implied Bolden intended in the interview. And Bolden clarified his comments in the interview.

But Faux news and the righties don't care about the actual interview. They only care about taking a comment out f context if it can be used in the propaganda war.

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

Gibbs appears to be answering without any knowledge of the actual interview. And Gibbs takes the reporter's version of the interview as a factual interpretation of the comments.

I would think a man in his position would take a more skeptical approach.

 

[Ziggurat]

This 'issue' is a distortion of the facts made into a manufactured thing to be outraged about.

Except the facts weren't distorted. The whole issue may not be very important, but you're not trying to argue that the issue is blown out of proportion, you're basically accusing people of lying. And that's not the case.

The mistake the Democrats make is trying to walk on eggshells over these manufactured outrages. That is where they look stupid. In the case of Gibb's reply, he's the one making things look bad. Gibbs appears to be answering without any knowledge of the actual interview.

Gibbs is acting appropriately: he's doing damage control, because he knows Bolden stepped in it, and he doesn't want the stink rubbing off on the Whitehouse. He's also doing what you should have been doing: taking the position that it was a mis-statement but not ultimately important.

And Gibbs takes the reporter's version of the interview as a factual interpretation of the comments.

Because it was. We've been over this already, Skeptic Ginger.

Of course it isn't "NASA'a mission" in the way the reporter implied Bolden intended in the interview.

It isn't NASA's mission in the way that Bolden said it was.

And Bolden clarified his comments in the interview.

No, Bolden backtracked.

But Faux news and the righties don't care about the actual interview.

Clearly you don't either.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I would think a man in his position would take a more skeptical approach.

Unfortunately, PR skills are not one of the Democratic Party's strong points