• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

“Until such time as the world ends, we will act as though it intends to spin on.”

If senate republicans had any shame, they’d die of it.

Petty moves from a petty man.

I would try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

Republicans firmly believe having an abortion is a very personal, very private decision between a woman and J.D. Vance.

When they say they are pro-life, they do not mean yours.

Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.

Republicans are the party of chaos and catastrophe.

“In the future, this lab will be a museum. do not touch it.”

Quote tweet friends, screenshot enemies.

They traffic in fear. it is their only currency. if we are fearful, they are winning.

People are complicated. Love is not.

The lights are all blinking red.

People really shouldn’t expect the government to help after they watched the GOP drown it in a bathtub.

Within six months Twitter will be fully self-driving.

Never entrust democracy to any process that requires republicans to act in good faith.

Rupert, come get your orange boy, you petrified old dinosaur turd.

Polls are now a reliable indicator of what corporate Republicans want us to think.

Why is it so hard for them to condemn hate?

With all due respect and assumptions of good faith, please fuck off into the sun.

I really should read my own blog.

When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.

The low info voters probably won’t even notice or remember by their next lap around the goldfish bowl.

The “burn-it-down” people are good with that until they become part of the kindling.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Neanderthal Nincompoop Nailed At NASA

Neanderthal Nincompoop Nailed At NASA

by Tim F|  February 8, 200610:45 am| 83 Comments

This post is in: Politics, Science & Technology

FacebookTweetEmail

We haven’t yet reached the point in the NASA story arc (more here, here, here and here) where the Deathmobile, representing science, triumphantly emerges from under the cake and crushes everything in its path. Doubtless that day will come, but in the meantime we can all have the pleasure of watching NASA flack and erstwhile B/C2004 campaign operative George Deutsch make the sad transition from a government player to a pejorative term conflating hubris, theocratic idiocy, ideology-driven patronage hiring and (late bonus) forged credentials. (login mrbig/mrbig):

George C. Deutsch, the young presidential appointee at NASA who told public affairs workers to limit reporters’ access to a top climate scientist and told a Web designer to add the word “theory” at every mention of the Big Bang, resigned yesterday, agency officials said.

Mr. Deutsch’s resignation came on the same day that officials at Texas A&M University confirmed that he did not graduate from there, as his résumé on file at the agency asserted.

As a fittting testimony to this weird new world of distributed journalism, the story was broken by blogger and recent A&M grad Nick Anthis. Kudos to the NYT for giving credit where credit is due.

Recall that Deutsch went a bit further than merely labeling the Big Bang a ‘theory.’

The Big Bang is “not proven fact; it is opinion,” Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, “It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator.”

Bye, George, you won’t be missed.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Boehner’s Apartment
Next Post: The Pushback Begins »

Reader Interactions

83Comments

  1. 1.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 10:57 am

    Is it not a theory? It’s a theory that makes more sense than, “A man with a white beard reached down from the clouds and made two people out of mud” and that sort of thing, of course, but I don’t get why adding that word alone is such an outrage. Isn’t it called “the Big Bang theory”?

  2. 2.

    Ancient Purple

    February 8, 2006 at 11:00 am

    What a complete disgrace. What the hell is a 24-year-old journalism student doing directing “science talk” at NASA? This isn’t just an “ooops” moment. This is a tragedy.

    Wasn’t this guy vetted on any level? Good God! I had a background check including having my educational credentials checked out when I was temping between jobs.

    On the bright side, at least Deutsch is available to take over FEMA now.

  3. 3.

    Tim F.

    February 8, 2006 at 11:17 am

    Words have different meanings in scientific versus popular-culture contexts. Scientifically-speaking, ‘theory’ is to ‘idea’ as ‘Wayne Gretzky’ is to ‘hockey player.’ Read more here.

  4. 4.

    JWeidner

    February 8, 2006 at 11:17 am

    Is it not a theory?

    I think the problem revolves around the differences between scientific theory and the general public’s understanding of the word.

    Scientifically, much of what could be understood as essentially “fact” is referred to as theory. However, some people (within this administration specifically, it seems) know that the word holds different connotations to the average joe. The average person is likely to think of theory as something unproven, less than fact and therefore open to interpretation, falsification and competing theories.

    This administration, as well as people like creationists, use the confusion over meanings to help create controversy where, scientifically at least, none exists. They have been particularly successful in attacking evolutionary theory, which, scientifically speaking, is on ground as solid as bedrock.

    I think what this instance really represents is an effort to frame the Big Bang as “just a theory” and is another attempt by religious elements to frame a scientifically sound theory as something that is open to debate. Ridiculous on the surface, but it has been remarkably effective in selling so-called “controversy” to a good number of citizens.

  5. 5.

    Halffasthero

    February 8, 2006 at 11:19 am

    Doubtless that day will come, but in the meantime we can all have the pleasure of watching NASA flack and erstwhile B/C2004 campaign operative George Deutsch make the sad transition from a government player to a pejorative term conflating hubris, theocratic idiocy, ideology-driven patronage hiring and (late bonus) forged credentials.

    John, you have a way with words that I have trouble improving on. I don’t post much anymore because it seems little more needs to be said.

  6. 6.

    Edmund Dantes

    February 8, 2006 at 11:24 am

    It wasn’t John.

  7. 7.

    Vladi G

    February 8, 2006 at 11:27 am

    Wasn’t this guy vetted on any level?

    Yes, and that process revealed that he would be an unquestioning shill for the administration, which is pretty much all they’re looking for. Actual qualifications are irrelevant (see also: “Drownie”).

    The sense of schadenfreude would be a lot more fulfilling if I thought this guy was going to pay any price for it. He’ll just be given a well paid job at some right wing think tank, and before long, he’ll be writing columns for Renew America.

  8. 8.

    Jill

    February 8, 2006 at 11:43 am

    Does anyone see a pattern here? Brown, Deutsch and how did it go for the nominee for NHTSA, Ms. Nason? Apparantly she too has no experience for her nominated position. It’s all faith-based, based on the faith that these people will tow the company line and nothing else.

  9. 9.

    The Other Steve

    February 8, 2006 at 11:45 am

    I can’t tell my friends about this.

    They already think this administration is insane. If they see this, they’ll lose all faith in America.

  10. 10.

    Davebo

    February 8, 2006 at 11:50 am

    I wonder if, like Brownie, he gets to stay on the payroll?

  11. 11.

    Marcus Wellby

    February 8, 2006 at 11:59 am

    Damn, will the mistakes of these Few Bad Apples* never end?

    *Copyright, 2006, GOP Inc.

  12. 12.

    neil

    February 8, 2006 at 12:00 pm

    The Big Bang is “not proven fact; it is opinion,” Mr. Deutsch wrote,

    which was NOT why he was fired. He was fired for faking his resumé. He will be replaced by someone with a real resume who will continue to push intelligent design, after the Bush administration basks in the praise for canning the guy they never should have hired in the first place.

    Just watch.

  13. 13.

    LITBMueller

    February 8, 2006 at 12:00 pm

    Another example of this sort of cronyism and political purging at the State Department can be read about in this Knight Ridder article from today.

    State Department officials appointed by President Bush have sidelined key career weapons experts and replaced them with less experienced political operatives who share the White House and Pentagon’s distrust of international negotiations and treaties.

    The reorganization of the department’s arms control and international security bureaus was intended to help it better deal with 21st-century threats. Instead, it’s thrown the agency into turmoil and produced an exodus of experts with decades of experience in nuclear arms, chemical weapons and related matters, according to 11 current and former officials and documents obtained by Knight Ridder.

    One of the zampolits filling the now-open positions:

    Thomas Lehrman, a political appointee who heads the new office of Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism, advertised outside the State Department to fill jobs in his office. In an e-mail to universities and research centers, a copy of which was obtained by Knight Ridder, he listed loyalty to Bush and Rice’s priorities as a qualification.

    Lehrman reportedly recalled the e-mail after it was pointed out that such loyalty tests are improper.

    Who is this Lehrman guy? A guy in his 30’s who has little experience, who’s came to the administration from the world of business consulting, who had formed a firm in 1998 with hardcore Neocon Mark Gerson. Lehrman also was on the staff of the Silbermann Robb Commission.

    Cronyism. Pure and simple. He’s doing a heckuva job.

    This is information I found from doing just a little research on Google (too bad KR didn’t do any…). I put a more in-depth post up on Kos if you want to read it, here.

    Jill, this is definitely a pattern. As far as Deutsch goes, it was silly. As far as Lehrman goes, it could be dangerous.

  14. 14.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 12:24 pm

    So it’s bad that this guy wanted it to be called a theory, even though scientists call it a theory, because this guy sucks. Instead of “fake but accurate,” it’s “accurate but fake.”

  15. 15.

    Ancient Purple

    February 8, 2006 at 12:27 pm

    So it’s bad that this guy wanted it to be called a theory, even though scientists call it a theory, because this guy sucks.

    So, when you talked about gravity, you have always said “theory of gravity,” right?

  16. 16.

    yet another jeff

    February 8, 2006 at 12:28 pm

    The only thing worse than an Aggie grad is an Aggie dropout.

  17. 17.

    Pooh

    February 8, 2006 at 12:52 pm

    zampolits

    Excellent word usage

  18. 18.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 12:53 pm

    So, when you talked about gravity, you have always said “theory of gravity,” right?

    Nobody does. Whereas lots of people say “the Big Bang theory.” (Not to mention that the effects of gravity are a lot easier for most people to see for themselves than the Big Bang, but whatever.) If you want to start calling it “the Big Bang law,” I think that would be okay too.

  19. 19.

    LITBMueller

    February 8, 2006 at 12:57 pm

    C’mon, guys, everyone knows that Gravity is just a theory. I learned it in science class, when the teacher taught us about Intelligent Pull!
    ;)

  20. 20.

    J-Smith

    February 8, 2006 at 1:00 pm

    I love to see guys like that go down.

    Notwithstanding… Jesus is gonna punish NASA for not believing His Dad (or obeying His Minion on Earth, GWB.)

  21. 21.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 1:05 pm

    Correction: It’s supposed to be that the man with the white beard reached down from the clouds and made a guy out of mud, and then later made a woman out of the guy’s… I think it was his rib? Sorry for messing up that theory. Which is really kind of sexist when you think about it.

  22. 22.

    Slartibartfast

    February 8, 2006 at 1:09 pm

    Correction: It’s supposed to be that the man with the white beard reached down from the clouds and made a guy out of mud, and then later made a woman out of the guy’s… I think it was his rib?

    Wait…this beard part, it’s all just a theory.

  23. 23.

    coachtrenks

    February 8, 2006 at 1:21 pm

    no…you can’t call it the “Big Bang Law” unless you have a mathematical relationship that describes events. The Law of Gravity lets you calculate the force between two objects if you know their masses and the distance between them. The Gravitational Theory is an attemtp to explain HOW this works. (still working on the details here…that pesky “gravitron” just isn’t behaving like other theoretical particles).
    There is, among the non-scientific laity, a misconception that theories become laws once you “prove” them. Not so.

    Ditto for gas laws (Boyle’s Law, Charles’ Law, Gay-Lussac’s Law) and the Kinetic THEORY.

  24. 24.

    Nongeophysical Dennis

    February 8, 2006 at 1:22 pm

    Correction: It’s supposed to be that the man with the white beard reached down from the clouds and made a guy out of mud, and then later made a woman out of the guy’s… I think it was his rib? Sorry for messing up that theory. Which is really kind of sexist when you think about it.

    You see, this is what we’re talking about, you are confusing the scientific definition of theory (from Tim F’s link) and what might be termed guess, suppositon or belief. The God-stuff is NOT theory. It might be a hypothesis–but it isn’t really even that. It is completely untestable, unfalsifiable, and in my own personal defintion unscientific. (To be scientific the observations must lead you towartds the theory–not the theory being used to measure observations.

    That is why political hacks tossing around the word “theory” is objectionable.

  25. 25.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 2:13 pm

    no…you can’t call it the “Big Bang Law” unless you have a mathematical relationship that describes events.

    Don’t tell me, tell Tim F.

    You see, this is what we’re talking about, you are confusing the scientific definition of theory (from Tim F’s link) and what might be termed guess, suppositon or belief. The God-stuff is NOT theory.

    So much for the Theory of Being Able to Discern Irony.

  26. 26.

    Nongeophysical Dennis

    February 8, 2006 at 2:25 pm

    So much for the Theory of Being Able to Discern Irony

    Hey, that’s a good one, it’s funny on many levels. You spend several posts telling us you see no problems with Deutsch telling us the Big Bang is a theory, in fact you even allow that it’s a better theory that the Man with The Beard theory.

    That’s the problem, the Man with The Beard Theory ISN’T a theory–it’s not even a “bad” theory–it’s something else entirely.

    Nobody does. Whereas lots of people say “the Big Bang theory.” (Not to mention that the effects of gravity are a lot easier for most people to see for themselves than the Big Bang, but whatever.) If you want to start calling it “the Big Bang law,” I think that would be okay too

    No it wouldn’t.

    Gravity IS a law (not a theory) and the Big Bang is a Theory (not a law) It may seem like a small quibble, but it is not. I’m just trying to help you clear up some confusion. If you wanna get snippy, go ahead.

  27. 27.

    Pooh

    February 8, 2006 at 2:27 pm

    For more on Mr. Deutsch’s “bona fides” try this

    Good times.

  28. 28.

    Paul Wartenberg

    February 8, 2006 at 2:51 pm

    Mr. Deutsch’s resignation came on the same day that officials at Texas A&M University confirmed that he did not graduate from there, as his résumé on file at the agency asserted.

    Has anyone else noticed how these crony/hack types tend to inflate or otherwise lie about their creds on their resumes? If I were the Democrats, I’d be getting every resume of every Bush apointee and fine-combing them down to the high school transcripts, hell the pre-K transcripts.

  29. 29.

    TM Lutas

    February 8, 2006 at 2:54 pm

    Once again, some idiot proves that if you’re going to lie on your resume, keep your head down and don’t court controversy.

    Again, the Big Bang theory is very christian friendly. I don’t know of one christian denomination that’s against it. It maps almost perfectly against the biblical book of Genesis. Of all the non-scientific resistance to the Big Bang, almost all of it is there because it maps to Genesis too well and anti-christian bigots don’t like that.

  30. 30.

    Paul Wartenberg

    February 8, 2006 at 3:00 pm

    kl Says:

    Is it not a theory? It’s a theory that makes more sense than, “A man with a white beard reached down from the clouds and made two people out of mud” and that sort of thing, of course, but I don’t get why adding that word alone is such an outrage. Isn’t it called “the Big Bang theory”?

    Yes, it *is* a theory meaning it’s an idea that has been tested and verified to a certain degree but not entirely proven an absolute truth, but there’s complexity to this issue. First off, the Big Bang is the most commonly accepted theory, and as I mentioned a second ago a lot of the evidence gathered on the makeup and history of the cosmos fits with the theory. Secondly, Deutsch was caught on record as arguing against the Big Bang as it opposes what he supported as creationism here’s the money quote:

    The Big Bang is “not proven fact; it is opinion,” Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, “It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator.”

    Considering this, alongside the fact Deutsch had no background or degrees in science to qualify him for a job at a science-oriented organization like NASA, showed up the fact he was a purely cronyist hire just like the good ole days of the Spoils System that corrupted government in the 19th century, and that he was only there as part of Bush’s War on Science.

    The question I have now is, who’s going to replace him at NASA? If it’s Pat Robertson, for the love of Dog, run!

  31. 31.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 3:16 pm

    Hey, that’s a good one, it’s funny on many levels. You spend several posts telling us you see no problems with Deutsch telling us the Big Bang is a theory, in fact you even allow that it’s a better theory that the Man with The Beard theory.

    That’s the problem, the Man with The Beard Theory ISN’T a theory—it’s not even a “bad” theory—it’s something else entirely.

    So you didn’t get the joke, that’s perfectly okay. The others can still enjoy it.

    Gravity IS a law (not a theory) and the Big Bang is a Theory (not a law) It may seem like a small quibble, but it is not. I’m just trying to help you clear up some confusion. If you wanna get snippy, go ahead.

    Whew!

  32. 32.

    Vladi G

    February 8, 2006 at 3:31 pm

    Seattle, once associated with coffee, should be better known now for the kind of fine whine derivative of sour grapes.

    Nothing to do with football here, but would someone PLEASE, FOR ONCE, PROPERLY CHARACTERIZE THE PARABLE OF THE FOX AND THE GRAPES?!?! This is fucked up more often than just about any literary device I’ve ever seen.

    Look people, it’s very simple. There was a fox. He wanted some grapes, but they were really high up on the vine. He couln’t reach them, so he walked away claiming that they were probably sour anyway. He denied their desirability.

    No one on the Seahawks is saying “we didn’t want to win that stupid old Super Bowl anyway.” They aren’t denying the desirability of the championship. It’s not “sour grapes” to complain about shitty officiating.

    Really, people, Aesop wasn’t all that complicated.

  33. 33.

    Nongeophysical Dennis

    February 8, 2006 at 3:39 pm

    So you didn’t get the joke,

    I got the joke, I just thought it wasn’t funny, was counter-productive and plays perfectly into the hands of the “just-a-theory” crowd.

    Think of it this way: Laws explain why things happen, such as why two bodies attract each other and what the force is (eg force of gravity proportional to the product of the two masses divided by the distance between thier centers–the Law of Gravity). And Theories explain what happened. (The Big Bang, descent with modification aka evolution, plate tectonics etc.

    Words mean things, words in science mean very specific things, things which are generally not at all understood by most people.

    Relax, I’m here to help.

  34. 34.

    Vladi G

    February 8, 2006 at 3:40 pm

    Dammit, wrong thread!

  35. 35.

    scs

    February 8, 2006 at 3:49 pm

    A little help from Dictionary.com

    Hypothesis -A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

    Theory – A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

    Fact – Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed

  36. 36.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 3:58 pm

    I got the joke, I just thought it wasn’t funny, was counter-productive and plays perfectly into the hands of the “just-a-theory” crowd.

    But other than that you liked it, right?

    Think of it this way: Laws explain why things happen, such as why two bodies attract each other and what the force is (eg force of gravity proportional to the product of the two masses divided by the distance between thier centers—the Law of Gravity). And Theories explain what happened. (The Big Bang, descent with modification aka evolution, plate tectonics etc.

    Wow! What is it called when you reiterate what the other person already knows, because you really really didn’t get a joke?

  37. 37.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 4:09 pm

    P.S. This part was a joke too:

    If you want to start calling it “the Big Bang law,” I think that would be okay too.

    See, I was being ironic because it’s not a law, but based on the way some people are reacting… oh, never mind.

  38. 38.

    Nongeophysical Dennis

    February 8, 2006 at 4:24 pm

    So it’s bad that this guy wanted it to be called a theory, even though scientists call it a theory, because this guy sucks. Instead of “fake but accurate,” it’s “accurate but fake.”

    As long as I’m busy insulting you, hows about we look up the difference between denotation and connotation?

    Is it not a theory? It’s a theory that makes more sense than, “A man with a white beard reached down from the clouds and made two people out of mud” and that sort of thing, of course, but I don’t get why adding that word alone is such an outrage. Isn’t it called “the Big Bang theory”?

    You’re pretty much asking why it’s a big deal, which tells me straight off that you don’t know the difference between theory and law, gettin’ snarky about it at the end of the thread doesnt change that. For the record, one more time, here’s why it’s a big deal:

    The Big Bang is “not proven fact; it is opinion,” Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, “It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator.”

    What’s it called when you’re not reiterating anything to somebody–but telling it to them for the first time and they try to pretend that that is what they meant all along?

  39. 39.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 4:26 pm

    Well, that’s an interesting… theory? Law? See, you’ve got me all confused now. Which is the one with the thing you mentioned? No, not that thing, the other one.

  40. 40.

    Nongeophysical Dennis

    February 8, 2006 at 4:29 pm

    Well, that’s an interesting… theory? Law? See, you’ve got me all confused now. Which is the one with the thing you mentioned? No, not that thing, the other one.

    As long as we’re clear on that, my work here is done! ;)

  41. 41.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 4:30 pm

    You’re pretty much asking why it’s a big deal, which tells me straight off that you don’t know the difference between theory and law

    Okay, so there was your problem.

  42. 42.

    Pooh

    February 8, 2006 at 4:34 pm

    Damned activist scientists

  43. 43.

    Halffasthero

    February 8, 2006 at 4:35 pm

    Edmund Dantes Says:

    It wasn’t John.

    February 8th, 2006 at 11:24 am

    Damn, I have to be more careful. You are right. What I said other than that still holds true.

  44. 44.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 4:39 pm

    Okay, I think I got it: In a quote, this fellow used the word “opinion” to describe what he thinks the Big Bang is, whereas in the official documents he insisted on the word “theory,” so therefore he thinks opinions and theories are the same thing? And so when he says “Big Bang theory,” he means something different than when scientists say “Big Bang theory”? So even though technically that word choice isn’t wrong, he was wrong in his heart, and there should be a law against that? Or no, a theory. A theory against that. Or…?

  45. 45.

    Nongeophysical Dennis

    February 8, 2006 at 4:45 pm

    Okay, I think I got it: In a quote, this fellow used the word “opinion” to describe what he thinks the Big Bang is, whereas in the official documents he insisted on the word “theory,” so therefore he thinks opinions and theories are the same thing? And so when he says “Big Bang theory,” he means something different than when scientists say “Big Bang theory”? So even though technically that word choice isn’t wrong, he was wrong in his heart mind.

    Bingo, now you’re on the trolley!

  46. 46.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 5:06 pm

    So when somebody would read “Big Bang theory” on that site, the reader actually thought it was saying “Big Bang opinion,” even though it didn’t actually say “Big Bang opinion.” Because of something this guy said in response to a reporter. Telepathy is just a theory too, right?

  47. 47.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 5:07 pm

    Relax, just kidding about the telepathy part! Everybody knows that’s a law.

  48. 48.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 5:09 pm

    I got the joke

  49. 49.

    Nongeophysical Dennis

    February 8, 2006 at 5:26 pm

    Now, y’see, you’re starting to scare me again, but you were always a d(t)roll fellow.

    So when somebody would read “Big Bang theory” on that site, the reader actually thought it was saying “Big Bang opinion

    I’m pretty sure we are all well familiar with that standard tactic. To pretend otherwise is disingenous at best. (Just replace the word “evolution” with the words “Big Bang.”)

    And so another front in the war on science is opened.

  50. 50.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 5:31 pm

    Oh, and I just wanted to point out that I’m not the one who brought laws into it. That was Ancient Purple:

    So, when you talked about gravity, you have always said “theory of gravity,” right?

    And I replied that no, I say “law of gravity,” because laws and theories aren’t the same thing, and made fun of him a little bit for trying to compare gravity with the Big Bang. Maybe that’s where you got mixed up.

  51. 51.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 5:34 pm

    I’m pretty sure we are all well familiar with that standard tactic. To pretend otherwise is disingenous at best. (Just replace the word “evolution” with the words “Big Bang.”)

    And so another front in the war on science is opened.

    That’s great, but I’m not sure how it explains why it’s wrong to give out accurate information to the public, even if it’s by accident.

  52. 52.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 5:35 pm

    The accurate information being that the Big Bang is a theory, of course, not that evolution explains Pat Buchanan.

  53. 53.

    Nongeophysical Dennis

    February 8, 2006 at 5:38 pm

    Nah, I actually caught that, but you were running with it, and this here is what really tripped my trigger

    So it’s bad that this guy wanted it to be called a theory, even though scientists call it a theory, because this guy sucks. Instead of “fake but accurate,” it’s “accurate but fake.”

    Deustch, knew what he meant, all the wingnuts know what he meant, and we for damn sure know what he meant–his team has a long track record of keeping the word “theory” front and center as though it scores big points for them.

    It’s gonna be a long tough fight, but I refuse to let them redefine the word theory.

  54. 54.

    Nongeophysical Dennis

    February 8, 2006 at 5:42 pm

    That’s great, but I’m not sure how it explains why it’s wrong to give out accurate information to the public, even if it’s by accident

    Because in the connotation of the word he’s clearly using it isn’t accurate information. He’s made it clear that that is not what he means to put across. It’s inaccurrate information that accidentally looks right.

  55. 55.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 5:44 pm

    Deustch, knew what he meant, all the wingnuts know what he meant, and we for damn sure know what he meant—his team has a long track record of keeping the word “theory” front and center as though it scores big points for them.

    Well, I think that pretty much sums up “accurate but fake”: It doesn’t matter that technically he’s right, because he and his dumb friends think they’re pulling one over on the godless evolutionists. Seems like that’s a pretty deep rabbit hole to be leaping down, and I just want to clarify that I don’t mean that literally.

  56. 56.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 5:47 pm

    Because in the connotation of the word he’s clearly using it isn’t accurate information. He’s made it clear that that is not what he means to put across. It’s inaccurrate information that accidentally looks right.

    So if the teacher tells you 2+2=4, but deep down he’s thinking “6!”, you’re going to have real problems with your multiplication tables.

  57. 57.

    stickler

    February 8, 2006 at 5:47 pm

    All this mental wanking about theories is nice. But here’s a question nobody has thought to raise, let alone get an answer for:

    WHO hired Mr. Deutsch?

    Subsidiary questions:

    Is that person certifiably insane, or just stupid as a box of hammers? And who hired HIM? Follow that line of reasoning, of course, and we all know where we end up. Where the buck stops, you might say…

  58. 58.

    Nongeophysical Dennis

    February 8, 2006 at 5:55 pm

    Your to funny, ewe assume that there interpretation of the word “theory” in this case is hard to suss out.

    When you read that last sentence aloud it has an entirely different meaning than the one seen on the screen. Proponents of Intelligent Design have a very long track of bandying about the word theory in the contect of “guess” and he mentions Intelligent Design in the same sentence as defining “theory” as opinion.

    The way he’s using it it is merely a homonym of the correct word nothing more. Scientists and (hopefully) students of science don’t need to be told the Big Bang is a theory. Deutsch isn’t including it for their benefit, by his own admission he’s attempting play down its significance for the rubes’ benefit.

  59. 59.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 6:24 pm

    The way he’s using it it is merely a homonym of the correct word nothing more. Scientists and (hopefully) students of science don’t need to be told the Big Bang is a theory. Deutsch isn’t including it for their benefit, by his own admission he’s attempting play down its significance for the rubes’ benefit.

    Attempting, okay, but succeeding? No, because everybody uses that term anyway, no matter what he intends it to mean. I know the Russians have done a lot of testing on telepathy, but I remain skeptical.

  60. 60.

    Tim F.

    February 8, 2006 at 7:00 pm

    This has to be one of the most inane discussions that I’ve ever seen. If you’re in favor of promoting creationism at NASA, kl, then say so. If not then you’re whistling out of your ass and calling it conversation.

  61. 61.

    Pooh

    February 8, 2006 at 7:05 pm

    If not then you’re whistling out of your ass and calling it conversation.

    I call it American Idol

  62. 62.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 7:29 pm

    This has to be one of the most inane discussions that I’ve ever seen. If you’re in favor of promoting creationism at NASA, kl, then say so. If not then you’re whistling out of your ass and calling it conversation.

    Civil! Hey, I was just questioning why it’s a big deal to say “Big Bang theory.” That’s why I said, “Isn’t it actually the Big Bang theory?” instead of, “I’m in favor of promoting creationism at NASA.” I’m sorry you don’t find the discussion interesting, but thanks for taking the time to pop in.

  63. 63.

    Tim F.

    February 8, 2006 at 7:49 pm

    The problem is not whether we understand the various meanings of ‘theory.’ We do. The problem is that Deutsch’s stated aim was to present the Big Bang as one ‘theory’ with credible alternatives, which is 100% bullshit. It conflates the two meanings of the word ‘theory,’ and it suggests that vaible alternatives exist when there are none. Deutsch even had the courtesy to explain why exactly he’s propagating this confusion, which is to promote creationism.

    Since you can get all of that from this post and my first reply, and you seem reasonably not retarded, it’s safe to assume that you already knew all of that. So don’t take it personally when I assume that you’re arguing in bad faith.

  64. 64.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 7:56 pm

    So don’t take it personally when I assume that you’re arguing in bad faith.

    If I didn’t take it personally when you said I was whistling out of my ass, why would I take it personally when you comically overestimate your own writing ability?

  65. 65.

    Tim F.

    February 8, 2006 at 8:07 pm

    No need to read my writing. As I quoted Deutsch:

    The Big Bang is “not proven fact; it is opinion,” Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, “It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator.”

    Pulling a dog-eared leaf out of the creationist playbook, Deutsch wants to sow confusion about whether there exist credible alternatives to the Big Bang theory. There do not. If you have problems with the multiple definitions of ‘theory,’ fine, but that’s not why we’re mocking the little turdmuffin.

  66. 66.

    JG

    February 8, 2006 at 8:15 pm

    Except for the timeline and who was present at the start, what is the difference between the two points of view? Over my lifetime, the scientific explanation has evolved to a single point in time – just like creation. The next question for science will be what and how all this “stuff” existed as a single point of mass or something since I think it pretty much would violate all current theories of mass and energy. What existed before the beginning is the age old question posed by philosophers and drug induced reflections. At this time in science, accepting the big bang as the total explanation is a believe system just like creation. I find it all interesting but of not much importance.

    And I have pretty much written off NASA, especially the manned space portion. Bring on the robots! Like most government agencies, it has become a bloated bureaucracy that stifles its best and has preservation of the bureaucracy as its primary goal.

  67. 67.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 8:17 pm

    No need to read my writing.

    Maybe you should? You know, before you post it?

    If you have problems with the multiple definitions of ‘theory,’ fine, but that’s not why we’re mocking the little turdmuffin.

    Well, I certainly I didn’t think it was.

  68. 68.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 8:22 pm

    Wait, I know! It’s like how black people can call each other the “n-word,” but then they get mad when white people do. This guy was calling the Big Bang an “n-word,” but only scientists get to do that.

  69. 69.

    Tim F.

    February 8, 2006 at 8:31 pm

    JG,

    I don’t disagree with anything that you said. The big bang theory is itself is ridiculous, improbable and riddled with assumptions that wreck our understanding of how matter and energy are supposed to behave. It would be laughed out of court, except that nothing else fits our current knowledge. Someday a better explanation will come along and, to everybody’s relief, kick the big bang off its improbable dais. But it hasn’t yet, and when it does it won’t be Deutsch’s anthropomorphized Creator.

    Manned space missions are definitely a boondoggle of the worst sort. Vanity projects that sap important resources. Shame that we elected a government that absolutely adores porrly thought-out vanity missions.

    kl just now:

    Well, I certainly I didn’t think it was.

    kl, first post:

    I don’t get why adding that word alone is such an outrage. Isn’t it called “the Big Bang theory”?

    I must have you misunderstood. Apologies &c.

  70. 70.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 8:43 pm

    kl just now:

    Well, I certainly I didn’t think it was.

    kl, first post:

    I don’t get why adding that word alone is such an outrage. Isn’t it called “the Big Bang theory”?

    I must have you misunderstood. Apologies &c.

    Did I say it was the only reason you were, as you say, mocking the little turdmuffin? Or did I just ask about that particular part? Heck, I even chipped in with a few snarky remarks about men in the clouds doing godly-type stuff. (Nonwhosit Dennis didn’t like ’em!)

  71. 71.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 8:50 pm

    Oh, one of them was actually in the full version of that line you quoted. Your mouse must have slipped when you were cutting it. Here ya go:

    It’s a theory that makes more sense than, “A man with a white beard reached down from the clouds and made two people out of mud” and that sort of thing, of course, but I don’t get why adding that word alone is such an outrage.

    See, by “makes more sense,” I was kind of struggling to find a way to say that it makes more sense. By the way, shouldn’t NASA promote creationism? J/K LOL

  72. 72.

    kl

    February 8, 2006 at 8:55 pm

    Oh wait, you guys thought I was saying creationism is a THEORY. Shit, my bad. It totally isn’t. And it sure as gosh ain’t a law!

  73. 73.

    kenB

    February 8, 2006 at 10:51 pm

    Hmmm… “kl”… reverse it…add an “E” on the front… Aha!!


    Oh what is my theory, that it is. Yes, well you may well ask, what is my theory.

  74. 74.

    DougJ

    February 8, 2006 at 11:20 pm

    How come we never hear about all the political appointees who didn’t lie on their resumes? Is it because of liberal media bias?

  75. 75.

    scs

    February 8, 2006 at 11:23 pm

    I don’t know about TimF thoughts on this, but I thoroughly enjoyed this thread!

  76. 76.

    JJ

    February 8, 2006 at 11:54 pm

    Why doesn’t anyone talk about Elizabeth Cheney being “Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs and Coordinator for Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiatives”? Guess you put your family members in regions that aren’t all that important.

    http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2005/42273.htm

  77. 77.

    Antonio Manetti

    February 9, 2006 at 2:32 am

    We can argue till the cows come home about what the meaning of “theory” is, the fact is that this kid had no damn business interfering with the way scientific information is presented.

    The travesty is that a wet-behind-the-ears, alleged journalism major and ex-gofer was allowed to spin scientific content to suit Bush’s core constituency and intimidate career scientists when they balked at knuckling under to the party line.

  78. 78.

    Richard 23

    February 9, 2006 at 8:19 am

    Anne Elk. LOL Ken B. AHEM!

    Her theory about the brontosaurus I always found illuminating! And what it is, and she owns it too.

  79. 79.

    skip

    February 9, 2006 at 9:48 am

    “He will be replaced by someone with a real resume who will continue to push intelligent design”

    Ah, with a degree in moonbeams and balloons from Bob Jones University.
    BTW, “Brontosaurus” is an obsolete name for Apatosaurus

  80. 80.

    kl

    February 9, 2006 at 10:31 am

    kenB… reverse it… change the “B” to an “F” and the “e” to an “i”… change ’em back again… reverse it again… Aha!!

  81. 81.

    kate

    February 10, 2006 at 4:53 pm

    OH MY GOD… ok, I mostly lurk here but I have to say I have been holding my sides while laughing at kl on this blog today.. Thanks for the funniest reading I have had all day!

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Balloon Juice says:
    September 22, 2006 at 11:46 am

    […] Maybe this is an isolated bad apple? It seems like other than David Safavian and now Alfonso Jackson the Bush administration has remained fairly clean. I mean, if you don’t include Claude Allen and the George Deutsch loonies at NASA, or the underage sex problem at DHS, or the entire Department of the Interior. You also have to discount the corrupt MZM defense contracting and the problem of DoD-sponsored profiteering in general. If we can ignore that and maybe sweep Keith Tomlinson under the rug then yeah, this administration is overall pretty clean. Alphonso Jackson must be some kind of outlier. […]

  2. Balloon Juice says:
    January 13, 2008 at 4:52 pm

    […] The problem permeates decision-making process from top to bottom. Magical thinking, the idea that nothing could be wrong as long as it is ideologically pure, helped Jim O’Beirne wreck the reconstruction of Iraq. George Deutsch, a young college “grad” (oops – he lied on his resume) with partisan credentials but no scientific background, did a respectable job of getting in the way of space science before his own nincompoopery brought him down. […]

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - beckya57 - Copper Canyon, Mexico, April 2025
Image by beckya57 (7/31/25)

World Central Kitchen

Donate

Recent Comments

  • Suzanne on GOP Venality Open Thread: May Van Orden Be the First of Many Defections… (Jul 10, 2025 @ 6:30am)
  • Steve LaBonne on GOP Venality Open Thread: May Van Orden Be the First of Many Defections… (Jul 10, 2025 @ 6:29am)
  • hueyplong on Wednesday Night Open Thread (Jul 10, 2025 @ 6:27am)
  • Baud on GOP Venality Open Thread: May Van Orden Be the First of Many Defections… (Jul 10, 2025 @ 6:26am)
  • Princess on GOP Venality Open Thread: May Van Orden Be the First of Many Defections… (Jul 10, 2025 @ 6:23am)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Feeling Defeated?  If We Give Up, It's Game Over

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!