< HOME  Thursday, June 29, 2006

No agency left intact - NASA's demise under Bush

A 30-year NASA veteran and one of the agency`s top shuttle engineers has reportedly angrily resigned only five days before Saturday`s Discovery launch.

* * *

Unidentified sources at NASA told ABC News Camarda has been feuding with Wayne Hale, the manager of NASA`s space shuttle program, and NASA Administrator Mike Griffin about treatment Camarda`s engineers received when they raised concerns about the upcoming Discovery launch. Some engineers believe more substantial changes need to be made.

Something tells me now is not a good time to be flying on that shuttle.

In a Tuesday email to his colleagues at Johnson, ABC News said Camarda reaffirmed his disappointment with NASA officials.

'I cannot accept the methods I believe are being used by this Center to select future leaders,' he wrote. 'I have always based my decisions on facts, data and good solid analysis. I cannot be a party to rumor, innuendo, gossip and-or manipulation to make or break someone`s career and-or good name.'

I guess he can forget about politics then.

One of the commentators after the article says it best.
President Bush has used the spoils system to replace meritorious public officials with politcal hacks and unqualified cronies. This time-honored, yet lethal approach to governance has resulted in the Katrina debacle and the administration-wide culture of incompetence has entangled the nation in an unwinnable war in Iraq which was predicated upon false pretexts and unfounded assumptions.

It is no surprise that Bush's congenital propensity for fostering corruption and incompetence has affected NASA as well.

They ought to strap Junior Bush to the problematic fuel tank when Discovery blasts off - he could ride that baby into space Slim Pickens style - Yeeeehaaawww!!

Poof!
Sounds good to me! I've got a great windbreaker that he can use for the ride.

6 Comments:

At Thursday, June 29, 2006, Anonymous What will happen to this world? said...

This is a slightly different topic, but nevertheless alarming. Actually it is VERY related. How so, you ask?! Well I've been noticing this trend as well, as racism is coming-out-of-the-closet, in America, Canada, Europe, Australia, and of course Yisrael (Israel).

The 'powerful' leaders and influential people who lurk in the shadows are making their move, torwards the direction of 'ethinic cleansing' of the planet. You already have seen the total disregard for human life in Palestine by the AshkeNazis, the riots in Britian and France, and the HATE of immigrants in USA, the riot/attack on innocent 'colored' people in Australia of last few years --- all the while will calls of "GO HOME YOU F###ING ##(insert racial slur here)!!!" ---- which is nonsense. Since it is the Europeans/whites which are really, technically the illegal immigrants. I find it quite odd how they can tell others to "go home" when it is they who are the "illegal immigrants" in USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa, etc. And this is not just about the brutal history of imperialism and colonialism, but for example, in the case of Mexico, more than half of the USA was previously Mexican (and this is not too long ago).

Alas, they conveniently leave out this important factor.

But for now, Enjoy the following well thought-out article.....


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


The polite face of racism - having a serious debate

29.06.2006

Britain has become one of the main EU countries at the forefront of the whole immigration debate in Europe right now and, in what can only be described as one of the most alarming trends within this discussion, has been the way in which seemingly one-time, respectable, mainstream politicians have come out of the closet to voice views in public that are disturbingly similar in tone to those of the far, right wing, British National Party (BNP), whether they be doing so intentionally or not.

This week saw British Member of Parliament for Birkenhead, Frank Field add his name to this unenviable list. Mr. Field is an ex-minister in the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair no less, such are his credentials, and still operates as a prominent backbencher in Parliament.

In an interview with the BBC, he is quoted as claiming that the UK is 'living on borrowed time' on the matter of immigration and questions whether the levels of immigration into Britain are sustainable.

One wonders where we have heard these arguments before - commonly from the customary prophets of doom, convinced as they all are that if we keep on letting those pesky foreigners through our doors then all hell will inevitably break loose at some point in the future.

It's the same drivel that right wingers like Enoch Powell trotted out in his famous 'Rivers of Blood speech' in England in 1968 and that Pat Buchanan has been ranting on about in America since the 1980s (a man who ran for President and failed dismally not just once but twice, one should note). Decades later, the world has still managed to keep spinning on its axis and life goes on normally of course.

Mr. Field, predictably, will decry the comparisons no doubt and yet the logic of his argument shows him to be just as out of touch with reality as these people were in turn.

'Do we just merely accept this as another form of globalisation?' he asks in the interview, 'that it doesn't matter where you are, or that you belong to a country and have roots?' he goes on.

So let me see if I can answer that question for him then - yes, greater levels of immigration is unquestionably an inevitable side effect of globalisation and, speaking of roots, if you are uncomfortable with that then you may want to consider returning your own Labour Party back to its supposed socialist roots that it once had many decades ago and oppose it globalisation in the first place. Until then I suggest you stop complaining about what is an unavoidable, economic fact of life these days.

Most laughable above of all though, is the way in which he tries to paint such views as those coming from a man who, like various others these days, is just trying to generate a serious, open and honest debate on the issue. How interesting then that he chooses to describe the current rate of immigration into the UK as something that the country is 'suffering!'

Little surprise that his comments come applauded by Sir Andrew Green, of pressure group Migration Watch, a well known anti-immigration group in itself.

However this has become a popular tactic these days. How often have we heard from people that they are merely trying to have a 'serious' debate on the issue of immigration, when in reality that phrase has become little more than a keyword for opposing it in the first place.

So the argument goes that, by not truly addressing this issue, we leave a window of opportunity open for neo-Nazi political parties like the BNP to feed off voter's concerns and gain leverage at the ballot box.

That, of course, is an entirely confused and misguided logic.

It's a bit like having a conversation with a heroin drug addict and then turning around to your friends afterwards and telling them that you think he may just have a point there about legalising drugs.

Rather than sympathising with the bigoted, racist concepts of any kind or delicately top-toeing around the issue, we should call them precisely what they are and utterly condemn them.

Politicians like Frank Field don't see that, and one wonders if perhaps the reason why he doesn't is because, deep down, it's just not within his beliefs to credibly do so.

To suggest that someone like the BNP could be doing a lot better in elections if only they had a better party leader is to tacitly imply they have some credence to their policies including, let us not forget, one of repatriating immigrants.

People should be left in little doubt here as to the danger of the fire that they are playing with.

So if we really want to have a serious debate about this then let's do just that and get all the facts out on the table here.

A token reference about how benefits 'will' come from immigration is not doing that or anywhere close to it. The reality is that the benefits are being felt right now and have been for a long time, and indeed it is interesting to note that one of the three EU countries which did not restrict immigrants from the new Eastern European nations that joined in 2004 - Ireland - is well known for having one of the strongest and most vibrant economies around presently.

Indeed how ironic that this week also sees comments from the National Unions of Students in Europe (ESIB) reported in CNN about how their concern is actually the brain drain of many of Europe's best and brightest students moving to study in the UK, as many of them then remain there afterwards gaining employment, with all that this has to offer the British economy.

In the meantime, whilst some can afford to enjoy the privilege of worrying about things like roots and national identity, they might want to spare a moment to think instead about far more pressing issues the planet has to wrestle with right now such as severe global poverty.

We all may love the country we came from but that does not mean we are going to sit there and starve to death in it because we can't get a job and provide food for our families.

If Mr. Field, has a solution to offer to those who have to face real problems like that in life then please tell us what it is. If not then I suggest he puts a hold on his next interview with the BBC until he does.

John Bourke

 
At Thursday, June 29, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

Thanks for including this article. Racism and immigration are very relevant topics that most people feel very strongly about one way or another. However, although I am a second generation immigrant and I believe all human beings are equal before God and are entitled to have their dignity preserved, I do not have strong views on immigration policies one way or another because I see them as a secondary problem.

From reading several articles about immigration and reading different perspectives on it, both 'liberal',i.e., non-racist, and 'conservative' or 'racist', I've concluded that it's almost impossible to change people's minds on the issue and that people should be left to gravitate towards whichever group of people they tend to gravitate towards naturally.

My point is that money dictates economics and economics in turn dictates demographics. The author of this piece agrees to this much when he says:

"We all may love the country we came from but that does not mean we are going to sit there and starve to death in it because we can't get a job and provide food for our families."

Immigration policies should be decided democratically by the majority of any given native community. They should not be dictated by who controls the supply of money in different nations.

As it is, immigration policies (implemented by governments) are makeshift solutions, bandaids so to speak, to economic realities already created by banks. Economic realities drive immigration. The law merely limits it.

This is a catastrophe because legal rules and regulations are primarly directed against the immigrants themselves who are already subjected to harsh economic realities created by banks.

In other words, immigrants are being "regulated" when in fact, it's the banks (who control the money supply and the economic facts on the ground) who must be regulated to prevent them from screwing up economies as miserably as they already have - forcing people to immigrate from their homes in search of money.

It is this simple fact that leaves me convinced that while racism is a problem, it is not one that can be easily solved, nor is it THE biggest of world problems. Monopoly of the world's money supply is.

It's the inequitable monetary system that exacerbates racism as it does every other problematic characteristic that plagues humanity. We cannot solve any of them, however, before we put an end to our fraudulent monetary system.

 
At Thursday, June 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just when we need NASA's help to colonize the moon because Israel is starting WWIII, NOW. Once nukes start flying, we won't have to worry about illegal wars, banned books like "America Deceived" by E.A. Blayre III, protestors in cages and NSA wire-taps. Anyway, NASA's never been to the moon anyhow.
Support indy media.
Last link (before Google Books gets sent to the moon):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0

 
At Friday, June 30, 2006, Anonymous Mighty Thor said...

Qrswave Shows Good Journalism Builds Good History--Despite Problems
(Mighty Thor, 29 Jun 06)

Qrswave, I do pity u, and I try to understand u live in very heartland of Judaic enemy, Jew York. Actually, considering ur shortcomings and disadvantages, u really do very well--Mike Rivero respects ur analytical ability, and he surely would empathize w. ur rationalist, rather Libertarian-type outlook (I suspect, if not being too presumptuous). Good Journalism builds Good history, necessary for patriot success, I submit, despite your other problems.

But proper political practical answer is easier than u make out: Original American Articles of Confederation should be recognized by states who can begin to send Senators elected properly, as by state legislators. Pls see Bill Benson's TheLawThatNeverWas.com website. U could then have citizenship of a state--depending upon that state's criterion.

Illegal aliens of non-white race are INVADERS AND ENEMIES and must and will be treated as such. Ur basic incompetence as American citizen is thus apparent, but excusable.

Very simply RACISM IS VIRTUE OF LOYALTY AND PRIDE and is obviously a great virtue. Failure to understand racism as virtue IS BASIC FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND WESTERN CULTURE--this, qrswave, is why u're not competent for true American citizenship.

Only Jew (and pathologically subjectivist) liars and murderers of truth, hence Talmudism wherein Jews make themselves out to be worshipped by a slave-God, could possibly understand and express racism as not a virtue, and indeed when u observe Jews, they ARE THE MOST RACIST PEOPLE WHO EVER EXISTED. Do u know others who observe similarly, dear qrswave?

So u see, we white Christians of honesty can only pity such as u qrswave, as I say, but we try to have Christian understanding for u too, and we applaud whatever ability u do demonstrate to be human and humane despite ur cultural prejudices (so subjectivistic) which u struggle with.

Yes, fraud and counterfeiting, like the Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) scam are pretty antisocial things to do and practice and excuse and justify; I agree with ur conclusion--but isn't there more to it all? Surely u understand there is tremendous history regarding this fractional-reserve scam issue, especially pertaining to USA, Presidents T. Jefferson and A. Jackson, among others.

That's why, historically, Jews and gentile accomplices for generations work for destruction of gentile objectivistic rule-of-law in favor of subjectivist law--exactly as Bush II regime does now in accord with CFR (Council on Foreign Relations--see TheNewAmerican.com for expo) instructions.

We patriots then and now are looking for a sea-change in the Spenglerian cycle of history and "Decline of the West." We patriots must be patient, honest, accurate, incisive, and informative. Thus we patriots hope to devise a practical political plan. And this information and analysis is why u're so justifiably famous qrswave, more than making up for ur large defects as American citizen. What would Mike Rivero do without such as u?--an honest and useful observer and journalist, whatever other drawbacks u might have.

CONCLUSION: Keep up, dear qrswave, all ur so admirable journalistic efforts, so integral and basic for GOOD HISTORY. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Thor

 
At Friday, June 30, 2006, Blogger jomama said...

As much as I dislike giving the current Bozo any credit, NASA was in the terlet a long time ago.

 
At Friday, June 30, 2006, Anonymous eon8.com.... the counter -- what does it mean??? said...

Racism, Not Defence, At the Heart Of Israeli Politics

Of course, Olmert's comment, and the deep-seated racism at the heart of Israeli politics that it seems to expose, can be rationalised with the claim that it is not unreasonable that an Israeli Prime Minister would be more concerned about the lives of Israeli citizens than those of the Palestinian 'enemy'. After all, this is "war", is it not? Well, yes and no. Yes, if your definition of "war" is:

* to dispossess an entire people from large parts of their land

* shepherd them into refugee camps

* exile others and refuse them a right to return

* manipulate international opinion via the mainstream press and demonise the dispossessed people as terrorists when they resist your brutal measures against them

* deprive them of any real means to resist yet when they do manage to strike back, portray them as being a greater source of evil than you

* isolate them from any international aid and begin a process of slowly making their lives into a living hell

* periodically murder them, including many children to an average of 600 per year and then lie about it and ensure that their suffering is played down in the international mainstream press.
Posted Jun 30, 2006 09:47 AM PST
Category: ISRAEL

One of the justifications given for the attack on Iraq was that Iraq was in defiance of UN Resolutions. In hindsight, it turned out that Iraq was not defying the UN; they had indeed disposed of their banned weapons of mass destruction.

Israel, on the other hand, routinely ignores and defies UN Resolutions, some of which are listed here.

Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians".
Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors".
Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility".
Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in".
Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.
Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.
Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home