Was that a flying carpet I saw in the sky this evening, or has NASA gotten into some odd priorities lately?Though, to be sure--and to be fair--this notion (NASA's Islamic outreach program) did not originate with Obama.
All manner of politicians can and will eventually get around to trying all manner of tricks.
It's just that the Obama administration is more open about these kinds of "Islamic Outreach" efforts. Score one for Obama this time, at least on the merits of honesty, even if Al Jazeera yanked it out of his administration. He's weirding people out with such moves (as with the "aid" package to Hamas) but at least he has the gall to admit that Multi-Culti is now a priority of American space exploration and one of the new pillars of NASA's redefined missions. Bully for that.
All manner of politicians can and will eventually get around to trying all manner of tricks.
It's just that the Obama administration is more open about these kinds of "Islamic Outreach" efforts. Score one for Obama this time, at least on the merits of honesty, even if Al Jazeera yanked it out of his administration. He's weirding people out with such moves (as with the "aid" package to Hamas) but at least he has the gall to admit that Multi-Culti is now a priority of American space exploration and one of the new pillars of NASA's redefined missions. Bully for that.
Off to the stars we go. Or, at least to the red crescent moon anyhow...
Actually, just kidding. What we really need for NASA is some real leadership--and some direction.
"Just what do you think you're doing, Mr. President?"
10 comments:
Miss S. sure has an interesting crew. That's all I'm gonna say.
Miss S.'s site can be out there as well, to be sure.
But she has the goods on a lot of stuff glossed over by others.
-W
Wakefield, blogging at 1:12 am!?? What are you about?
"I’m surprised everyone is shocked that Barack Obama’s NASA Chief, Charles S. Bolden, Jr., announced that one of his three primary missions at NASA is Muslim outreach."
The wisdom of the outreach program to the Saudi's, whose oil reserves where of great importance to us and whose secret complicity in the radicalization of Islam was not yet understood, certainly is seen in a new light with the 20-20 hindsight we all have access to. But to have withstood the 9-11 attacks, been engaged in open warfare with Islamist radicals of Saudi Prince Osama Bin Laden for nine years and with the ever rising threat that Islamists in Syria and Iran will have nuclear weapons makes this president's outreach effort to the Muslim world completely disengaged from reality. It is todays world we are living in. Though it is of some interest that in previous years we had offered a certain degree of partnership with the Saudi space prince, that is a far different thing from trying to bring US space technology to the Islamist world. The first is an insignificant move of political expedience, the second is blithering idiocy, and risks the safety of every man, woman and child in the United States. President Bush spoke of Islam as a religion of peace and made efforts to separate the dangerous, violent aspects of Islam from the rest in an effort to avoid being construed as a modern day Crusader. You can question the wisdom of that decision, but there can be no question of the wisdom of the Obama goals for NASA. No wisdom, what so ever.
The HAL 9000 computer. "Dave, you seem very upset. Let's talk about this." Boy, I would like to see that movie again.
Good on ya, Wakefield!
What am I about?
About tired. And about jaded from all this, Nick. And "about" squeezing things in when I can. I'm frazzled but this is the time for the hunt and the blogging when I can. Though life is hectic and increasingly so, and I have some private issues to get around to at long last with family and relations, so with the ever-changing political climate throwing fastballs (and I can't get them all any more than I can DO it all around the house) it seems my commentary on many things will have to wait. So I might even suspend or quit blogging for a while. But I'll let the loyal readers know and perhaps refer you to each other or something.
Interesting input, Nick. Context is key, as always. And I'll never back down from that. You're right that the appearance of similarity is not always on the mark, even if Schlussel thinks so and means well for the "balance" of this and that (she's a conservative Jew, and not defending the administration by any stretch).
I added her link just to let people know, of course, that I'm aware that similar things have gone on in the past. But you're right that this current push for recognition and celebration of Islam's accomplishments seems more of an Islamic Outreach Program.
As to the House of Saud, it seems this is one of those Lose-Lose situations where the charge of "meddling" is easy, and by this of course the Left means the graceless, warmonger illegality years of George W. Monkey Bush and his father, and of course the war-stoking of Ronald "Ray-Gun" and the dreaded Neocons who control the media and are puppets of the puppet state Israel. Silly? That's the current take, and it's said by more than just secularists. It's claimed by right wingers, Paleocons, traditionalists, as well as peace hippies who hate Bush and Cheney. So Bush was chummy with the House of Saud, and yes I DO agree with Steyn that we need to throttle the funding of the radical madrassas that've sprung up in the last generation or so like spring mushrooms. Things change, as you noted. And one wonders just how much oil money flows to Bin Laden and Co, and if the House of Saud really supports his actions or they're just paying "blood money" for him to leave them alone. I've heard that too. But for certain we need to have a new energy policy and move away from MidEast issues as much as possible. On the other hand, as you know Israel (more than what we did in 1953 or the nixing of Saddam) is just as likely to be listed from the Sons of Allah as well as Bush haters as to the "why" of WHY "they" hate us.
Some deny this, though, as does a friend of mine who insists that it's less about this or culture conflicts or religion or ideology, etc. Rather, it's ONLY what we've "done" to them over the years.
More fool him. As I wrote to back, while some of this might be the case, "Of course, the other problem here that needs mention is that by "meddling" in the "affairs" of "Muslim lands", even if Islam is not claiming ownership of the world, by this phrase they certainly mean--you guessed it--the very existence of Israel.
If the Muslim world truly remembers the events of 1953 and has noted that the West got rid of Mosedegh (though odd they'd be upset about his REMOVAL, as that guy was not exactly one of the mullahs and was sort of secular and Western in his views) but forget the role Jimmy Carter had in ushering in the true mullah age by helping to depose the Shah later in 1979, then surely their collective memory is good enough to remember the events of 1947. No?
They still hold that "Palestine" is holy Muslim land, and that Israel is to be replaced. So even if every last Western diplomat, soldier, piece of equipment, sub-contractor, consultant, and visitor is removed from all the Middle East and we never so much as call them on the phone again to say "boo", we still have what is REALLY going on here when it comes to the "meddling" charge--the creation of Israel, and it's very existence (as bin Laden well-noted more than once, BTW) on holy "Muslim" lands.
So to paraphrase Harvard historian Richard Pipes on similar matters, this idea of "getting out" of "their" affairs is akin to chasing a phantom.
When the Islamist dominion claimed is a non-Muslim nation in a bad neighborhood if indeed perhaps the whole planet, backtracking can be a little dicey of a chore. They don't like our presence in Iraq or Afghanistan, no. Of course not. But note that not everyone over there is upset about this. If it's true as claimed that Islam is not monolithic and there are fine shades of distinction (or used to be in some areas of the world previously not radicalized, like Malaysia and Iran under the Shah--BTW) then it would seem we should point out the real troublemakers among the Talib/al-Qaeda types and in doing so not pay much credence to their types, etc.
___________________________
"If the Jews left Palestine to us, would we start loving them? Of course not. We will never love them. Absolutely not. The Jews are infidels – not because I say so, and not because they are killing Muslims, but because Allah said: “The Jews say that Uzair is the son of Allah, and the Christians say that Christ is the son of Allah. These are the words from their mouths. They imitate the sayings of the disbelievers before. May Allah fight them. How deluded they are.” It is Allah who said that they are infidels."
_______________
Oh, and BTW, you might like one of my latest adventures, this time discovered accidentally via Facebook connections, but I had to comment:
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0712/fox-legal-analyst-bush-indicted/
Scroll down to the 9th or 10th comment, where I lay into some dweeb regarding the Holderian Justice Department's refusal to prosecute the New Black Panthers on voter intimidation, the back and forth on this, and why Cynthia Tucker and Media Matters boned this one.
..and "about" later along in the wee hours of the AM than even before!
oops---
The above quote about not loving the Jews if they took to heart Helen Thomas' advice is from Egyptian cleric Muhammad Hussein Ya’qoub
Good stuff, Wakefield.
Judge Napolitano, what the heck was he thinking? The US was under attack, thousands of lives had been lost, many thousands more were in danger, and the judge thinks time is of no concern? He might as well claim that all the citizens whose flights were cancelled or delayed two weeks have had their freedoms and rights as trampled upon by the state. It is all a very fine argument to make from the safety of a Fox News studio, with no responsibility to shoulder for the lives in jeopardy President Bush was attempting to protect.
Given that, the judge is advancing an empty argument devoid of grounding in the reality of the events of September 11th, 2001, and therefor is of little interest to me.
Elsewhere, it gets even better:
http://progressiveerupts.blogspot.com/2010/07/black-panther-case-dropped-by-bush.html
That was not in relation to his honor the judge, but thought you'd get a kick. Similar text.
As to Napalitano, it's interesting he's not taken that seriously elsewhere by the Left, as when he discussed his opinion that ObamaCare WILL be covering illegal aliens after all. Hmmm.
http://libertymaven.com/2009/09/18/judge-napolitano-weighs-in-on-joe-wilsons-outburst/7335/
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/09/18/judge-andrew-napolitano-joe-wilson-right-obama/
In the above links, the good judge actually made some rather interesting arguments based on case law as it relates to illegal aliens' issues with social services in the past, and as you can see he's arguing that in his opinion, "persons" is the coverage issue that would probably at some point come before the court.
No where in the multi-thouand page document (2400 pages?? Not sure by now) does the phrase "illegal alien" appear, nor any variant such as migant worker, etc. The key word is "eligible" vs. non.
The only major conservative counter-argument to this came from David Horowitz, who seems to think that this would NOT be the case, as case law in those circumstances was limited to CHILDREN of illegals, and the issue was that they are here generally not at their own free will and descretion, and so must be aided regardless of legal status. Still, even limited to that scope, Nick, you could see how this might play out for ObamaCare regarding medical attention to so-called "anchor babies" and the already extant issue of needing care for the children of illegals that the courts have already said are to be schooled.
Post a Comment