"Monte Davis" wrote in message
news
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

Clearly, one can construct an unlimited number of clearly defined,
but stupid, goals. Why is this not one of them?


I smell a rhetorical question :-)


The question is not rhetorical, it's not argumentative
but simple.

What are the reasons for this dramatic change in direction
for Nasa? It's easy to sit back and force the other side to
explain themselves. But I've given plenty of reasons why
it's a bad idea. I've given alternative goals and why they
would be better and in detail. So, I have evey right to demand
they start explaining their side.

It's a simple question even a simple mind can comprehend.

Why isn't science deciding our scientific goals???
The administrator says the reason is faith.

I say such a reason is not just insufficient.
I say such a reason is not just wrong.
I say it's completely the opposite of rational.

When confronted with such a clear logical contradiction, which
is that our scientific goals have no rational justification, then
logic dictates alterior motives are at play. Or ignorance.

I see no other possibilities.

And since this policy change could lock us into a FORTY YEAR
program. I say we deserve better. The truth as I see it?

Someone like President Bush looks at Nasa the way a CEO
looks at some minor subsidiary.

To be handed out to insiders, friends and family.
This is a money grab, it's obvious.

It's what the truly big-time players like the Bush family
.....do for a living.


Jonathan

s








Monte Davis
http://montedavis.livejournal.com