The Geek Forum
Main Forums => Political Opinions => Topic started by: 12AX7 on July 06, 2010, 06:18:18 AM
-
Just what th fuck?
NASA Chief: Next Frontier Better Relations With Muslim World (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/05/nasa-chief-frontier-better-relations-muslims)
"...NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in a recent interview that his "foremost" mission as the head of America's space exploration agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world."
:? Could someone enlighten me as to how it is AT ALL the job of NASA to improve relations with Muslims? And why it would be "the foremost mission" of the space agency?
If you can explain that; then please clue me in on how one would accomplish this without it being diplomacy at all?
"...However, Bolden denied the suggestion that he was on a diplomatic mission -- in a distinctly non-diplomatic role. "Not at all. It's not a diplomatic anything," he said."
One more thing. If any of you can find this on another site besides FoxNews; let me know. I looked all over for it; and found nothing.
-
If This:
if any of you can find this on another site besides FoxNews; let me know.
Then:
what the fuck?
-
Cuz we like hearing what we want to hear and nothing else.
-
I think it's hilarious. I don't watch I just like to check out all the headlines of the day, read some stories and then go to FoxNews.com and laugh at "GIANT SNAKES EATING PETS" or something.
-
In all seriousness, I have stopped reading Fox News because it seems like they are trying to entertain rather than inform in most cases, especially on their cable news network. Either they have gotten worse with it over the years, or I have just become more aware of what they're doing, but either way there are better news outlets out there to pick from.
BTW, there's this from the New York Post:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/muslim_star_project_dAthuXBO3itv1PHotcY1PJ
-
I guess it's too much to ask to post something substantial about the actual topic.
You guys are as bad as the people who post ON Fox. Can't seem to focus on the topic without all this peripheral bs.
Nobody wonders why NASA can't fund any space missions; but has the "foremost mission" of foreign policy?
You believe it's a fake story?
-
Oh... Alright.
-
ETA- You got that posted just before I posted, Chris. It wasn't ignoring or responding to your post. Thanks for the linkage.
there are better news outlets out there to pick from.
True, and I visit and read as many as I can. But when I find a story such as this, and can't find it anywhere else for corroboration, I'm stuck with the Fox article. They do seem to cater to entertainment; but that doesn't mean the articles (like this one) are fakes.
BTW, there's http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/muslim_star_project_dAthuXBO3itv1PHotcY1PJ]http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/muslim_star_project_dAthuXBO3itv1PHotcY1PJ]http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/muslim_star_project_dAthuXBO3itv1PHotcY1PJ (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/muslim_star_project_dAthuXBO3itv1PHotcY1PJ)this[/url] from the New York Post.
Excellent. Thanks for the link.
-
dammit
-
I hit Modify on your post; meant to hit Quote...sorry Chris
-
Oh... Alright.
You posted same time I did.
-
I believe he said that on Al Jazeera and the story is real. I also believe that through collaboration with other countries NASA can "expand (their) international relationships". And sure, some of those countries we collaborate with can be dominantly Muslim with certain caveats that would, of course, apply to most foreign countries.
Where Bolden loses me is where we need to make them (Muslim countries) "feel good" about their contributions. Moreover that it would be the "foremost" mission of NASA. Why would they being singled out like this?
-
Although I'm all for "expanding international relationships"; I don't think our Aeronautics and Space Agency are the ones to do it. We already HAVE diplomats and people whose sole job is improving relationships with foreign nations. NASA should be more focused on improving relationships with their funding and supporters; and get back to the business of Space Exploration. We have an ISS without it being NASA's "foremost mission" to improve foreign relations.
-
I agree, I think NASA has bigger and better things to worry about and focus on. I'd certainly like to see a human land on Mars and return home safely in my life time. Whether or not that's even close to happening with our currently technology, I don't know, but I'd like to see them try and get us to that point.
-
We're spying on them using NASA funds. NASA feels guilty about it and issues an unsolicited statement.
/conspiracy theory mode
-
NASA has no place in the Muslim world, then again at least they're helping the Muslims and not going to war with them. And they're not just going to educate them about space, but other things like global climate change so maybe it won't be a terrible idea.
It might be; if they (we) had the money for it. We don't. So they (NASA) don't. We already pay for people and organizations to do those very things; for far more than just Muslims. We pay NASA to explore space; and their funding has been cut to the point that we now have no launch vehicles (once the shuttles' missions are complete); and no prospects for one in the foreseeable future. Let alone four like we've had.
-
Also; what are the Muslim nations bringing to the table? Or is it (again) just doling out from the US; to be later condemned for by THAT Muslim nation's neighbor when they start to fight?
-
I know it's a waste of money, didn't say it wasn't but I mean I'm used to seeing the American government waste money.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102074.html)
Gotta agree on that one.
-
"The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the
products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the
stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to
make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when
weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of
expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed. A Floating
Fortress, for example, has locked up in it the labour that would build several hundred cargoships.
Ultimately it is scrapped as obsolete, never having brought any material benefit to
anybody, and with further enormous labours another Floating Fortress is built. In principle
the war effort is always so planned as to eat up any surplus that might exist after meeting the
bare needs of the population. In practice the needs of the population are always
underestimated, with the result that there is a chronic shortage of half the necessities of life;
but this is looked on as an advantage. It is deliberate policy to keep even the favoured
groups somewhere near the brink of hardship, because a general state of scarcity increases
the importance of small privileges and thus magnifies the distinction between one group and
another."
-
... well... I agree on the US Government wasting money part. I just went to read the actual article, and yes; that money probably could be spent on other things. The point to remember is the war wasn't started there. It was started here. And I don't know about you, but I'd rather fighting a war be done on my opponent's homes and cities rather than my own.
In other words; I'd rather have this war and have it over there, than have it over here.
And they already have come over here; so it's naive to say they won't/couldn't.
Also, it's not "the Muslims" we are at war with. Its a cult, basically, that calls itself Islamic. That is the target of the war; Al Queda and their hosts, the Taliban. The irony is that we are there to help "the Muslims" - especially in Afghanistan; but no one seems to be willing to acknowledge that. We're still there because they can't do it yet; govern their own country. The biggest part of those dollars cited in that article are going to train and equip the Afghan Army; and a lot more of it goes to help them set up their government.
-
I would love to get bombed with ya.
-
Interesting fact:
We (the US) aren't giving the Afghans our old, used, already-paid-for helicopters. Nope. We are buying Russian helicopters from Russia to give to the Afghans; because that's what their pilots are already familiar with. That's nice of us, isn't it?
-
I'd certainly like to see a human land on Mars and return home safely in my life time. Whether or not that's even close to happening with our currently technology, I don't know, but I'd like to see them try and get us to that point.
I was hoping; with the find of water on the moon (http://news.discovery.com/space/is-there-water-on-the-moon-bucketloads.html), that that trip to Mars would be a HUGE step closer. Now, though, like BS mentioned, with spending unbelievable amounts on war, bailing out every other industry, and now the oil spill (I know; BP's supposed to pay for it. Wonder where BP gets it's revenue...); even if someone had the political will there's no way a trip to Mars or the moon would be funded.
-
Space exploration is an enemy of Islam and must be wiped out.
"Sun rises, Muslims worldwide outraged, demand apology. Ra unavailable for comment"
-
Muslims would have a heck of a hard time with space travel, what with space being curved and all. And what if (going scifi for a sec here) we drop into another dimension or something to get where were going? where would they pray to?
-
Right; but the point of the article isn't about Muslims; its about expensive, fucked up priorities in our government; in this case, NASA.
-
Muslims would have a heck of a hard time with space travel, what with space being curved and all. And what if (going scifi for a sec here) we drop into another dimension or something to get where were going? where would they pray to?
The Muslims I've worked with have been pretty practical about that and other issues. There was some leeway in the praying direction thing -- you don't get punished for getting it wrong, you just try to get it as close as you can. So the answer in space would be: wherever your best guess as to where Earth is.
Aren't many Christians in the same fix, though? Which way is God when there is no "up"?
-
God isn't up. At least not Biblicaly speaking. That's a misunderstanding born of teh dumb.
Besides, Christians pray down, with their heads bowed in any direction.
-
You just find your way to the center of a gravity well, then every direction is up.
-
God isn't up. At least not Biblicaly speaking. That's a misunderstanding born of teh dumb.
Well, yeah, but it's still in the vernacular. Heaven is somewhere up there, hell is down. There are still plenty of people who believe that quite literally. Maybe none of them are in the space program, but you never know.
-
Well if heaven's supposed to be up, why do they pray down?
... are they all hell-worshippers?
-
Well if heaven's supposed to be up, why do they pray down?
... are they all hell-worshippers?
Nah, it's a posture of submission.
But we have thought, historically, you see, of the world as something made, and the idea of being--trees, for example-- constructions, just as tables and houses are constructions. And so there is for that reason a fundamental difference between the made and the maker. And this image ... originated in cultures where the form of government was monarchial, and where, therefore, the maker of the universe was conceived also at the same time in the image of the king of the universe. 'King of kings, lords of lords, the only ruler of princes, who thus from thy throne behold all dwellers upon Earth.' I'm quoting the Book of Common Prayer. And so, all those people who are oriented to the universe in that way feel related to basic reality as a subject to a king. And so they are on very, very humble terms in relation to whatever it is that works all this thing. I find it odd, in the United States, that people who are citizens of a republic have a monarchial theory of the universe. That you can talk about the president of the United States as LBJ, or Ike, or Harry, but you can't talk about the lord of the universe in such familiar terms. Because we are carrying over from very ancient near-Eastern cultures the notion that the lord of the universe must be respected in a certain way. People kneel, people bow, people prostrate themselves, and you know what the reason for that is: that nobody is more frightened of anybody else than a tyrant. He sits with his back to the wall, and his guards on either side of him, and he has you face downwards on the ground because you can't use weapons that way. When you come into his presence, you don't stand up and face him, because you might attack, and he has reason to fear that you might because he's ruling you all. And the man who rules you all is the biggest crook in the bunch. Because he's the one who succeeded in crime. The other people are pushed aside because they--the criminals, the people we lock up in jail--are simply the people who didn't make it.
So naturally, the real boss sits with his back to the wall and his henchmen on either side of him. And so when you design a church, what does it look like? Catholic church, with the alter where it used to be--it's changing now, because the Catholic religion is changing. But the Catholic church has the alter with its back to the wall at the east end of the church. And the alter is the throne and the priest is the chief vizier of the court, and he is making abeyance to the throne, but there is the throne of God, the alter. And all the people are facing it, and kneeling down. And a great Catholic cathedral is called a basilica, from the Greek 'basilikos,' which means 'king.' So a basilica is the house of a king, and the ritual of the church is based on the court rituals of Byzantium.
A Protestant church is a little different. Basically the same. The furniture of a Protestant church is based on a judicial courthouse. The pulpit, the judge in an American court wears a black robe, he wears exactly the same dress as a Protestant minister. And everybody sits in these boxes, there's a box for the jury, there's a box for the judge, there's a box for this, there's a box for that, and those are the pews in an ordinary colonial- type Protestant church. So both these kinds of churches which have an autocratic view of the nature of the universe decorate themselves, are architecturally constructed in accordance with political images of the universe. One is the king, and the other is the judge. Your honor. There's sense in this. When in court, you have to refer to the judge as 'your honor.' It stops the people engaged in litigation from losing their tempers and getting rude. There's a certain sense to that.
(Alan Watts) (http://www.american-buddha.com/watts.conscious.htm)
-
No wonder Christian churches creep me out so much.
-
Nah, it's a posture of submission.
Mosque or Gay church?
(http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/1071/islamprayer.jpg) (http://img27.imageshack.us/i/islamprayer.jpg/)