Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I did see the list of African-American Astronauts. But Astronauts have nothing to do with a technical background. Astronauts are really nothing more than glorified pilots.
Charles F. Bolden may be the head of NASA, but he was appointed that by Barack Obama(no surprise there). He had no management experience, nor does he have any technical experience at NASA. He has no technical specialization, nor does he have any management experience. His appointment by Obama as head of NASA is ridiculous. But it would hardly be the first appointment by Obama to be of the questionable variety.
An earlier acting head of NASA was Fredick D. Gregory in 2005 he served during the Bush Adminstration.
To say an astronaut doesn't have a technical background is patently ridiculous. First not all the astronauts are pilots. Mission specialist complete scientific experiments in several fields. You are showing a serious lack of understanding of what goes on in NASA. All of the astronauts mentioned hold advanced degrees including several with PhD’s from some of the most prestigious universities in this country.
One thing is pretty obvious you are a racist and you will say and do anything to justify your position no matter how intellectually dishonest or illogical it sounds.
The pictures were of the Apollo missions, Ovcatto made the claim that his uncle was a mathematician during the Apollo missions. So I looked through all the pictures I could find for the Apollo mission teams, I found absolutely nothing about a black man being on the staff.
Here is a more recent photo of the Nasa control room.
I do see some women and some Asians. But still no black people or hispanics. Guess we are still too racist.
A control room represents just a small portion of what goes on in NASA. Any mission has scientist and other technical specialist that work behind the scenes. The only thing your pictures prove is that there no Black Americans in the pictures.
By the way this a youtube video of a Black American NASA flight director.
To say an astronaut doesn't have a technical background is patently ridiculous. First not all the astronauts are pilots. Mission specialist complete scientific experiments in several fields. You are showing a serious lack of understanding of what goes on in NASA. All of the astronauts mentioned hold advanced degrees including several with PhD’s from some of the most prestigious universities in this country.
One thing is pretty obvious you are a racist and you will say and do anything to justify your position no matter how intellectually dishonest or illogical it sounds.
First, most Astronauts start out as pilots. Both Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong were pilots. Frederick Gregory was a pilot, so was Charles Bolden.
While I understand that many of these astronauts held advanced degrees. I still not believe that by way of being an astronaut that they are qualified to be head of NASA. Being that the head of NASA would need more of a background in how NASA is managed. Such as someone familiar with mission control, mission planning, or at least someone involved in rocket or system development.
It seems to me that the appointments of NASA heads is more a political/honorary position. Basically it seems they think it is great PR to have an actual astronaut as head of NASA. But he simply acts as more a government Liaison rather than a director of operations.
"Charles Bolden is the virtual host of the Shuttle Launch Experience attraction at Kennedy Space Center. "
So, is his only job being a figurehead, or does he have other duties?
First, most Astronauts start out as pilots. Both Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong were pilots. Frederick Gregory was a pilot, so was Charles Bolden.
While I understand that many of these astronauts held advanced degrees. I still not believe that by way of being an astronaut that they are qualified to be head of NASA. Being that the head of NASA would need more of a background in how NASA is managed. Such as someone familiar with mission control, mission planning, or at least someone involved in rocket or system development.
It seems to me that the appointments of NASA heads is more a political/honorary position. Basically it seems they think it is great PR to have an actual astronaut as head of NASA. But he simply acts as more a government Liaison rather than a director of operations.
"Charles Bolden is the virtual host of the Shuttle Launch Experience attraction at Kennedy Space Center. "
So, is his only job being a figurehead, or does he have other duties?
But, maybe I'm just being illogical.
You are!
NASA Administrator
The Administrator is the Agency's highest level decisionmaker, providing clarity to the Agency's vision and serving as the source of internal leadership to achieve NASA's mission. The Administrator aligns the strategic and policy direction of NASA with the interests and requirements of the Agency's stakeholders and constituent groups.
A control room represents just a small portion of what goes on in NASA. Any mission has scientist and other technical specialist that work behind the scenes. The only thing your pictures prove is that there no Black Americans in the pictures.
By the way this a youtube video of a Black American NASA flight director.
First, you don't seem to understand my point behind my statement about the lack of diversity in the technology field. Some idiot tried to make a connection that diversity has led to greater innovation in this country. I was merely pointing out that the greatest strives in innovation in this country have been in environments that have been the very opposite of diverse. To say that diversity has brought us anything at all, is delusional.
Secondly, NASA is a shell of its former self, it will be offshoring shuttle-work to Russia for the next several years. Buzz Aldrin has become more and more critical of NASA and their current slate of missions. Basically stating that they are a waste of time and resources.
So there is one black guy hiding out in the back of the building somewhere and never seems to make it into pictures. Good for him, maybe he is the exception to the rule. I never stated that no black person was ever intelligent enough to be an engineer, I simply stated that their probability for the kind of intelligence necessary to become a top-level engineer was much lower than people of other races. If you were to go by the SAT as any sort of indicator. Then in the top 1% of scorers, whites outnumber blacks 40 to 1.
And before you go off on a tangent about how the SAT doesn't matter, keep in mind Bill Gates scored a 1590, and his partner in Microsoft, Paul Allen scored a perfect 1600.
Basically what I am saying is, if NASA has 40 employees. Then by population statistics, 26 should be white, 5 should be black, 6 should be hispanic, 2 should be Asian, and one should be Native-American.
But because there is an uneven level of average intelligence from race to race. The reality should be that out of 40 employees at NASA, 30 should be white, 8 should be Asian, 1 should be black, 1 should be hispanic, 0 should be Native-American.
The reason these videos about black engineers have become so important is that, there is an attempt to motivate a group of people who typically are not successful in a certain field, to at least try.
Imagine it like a Spud Webb, who was 5'7". I know if I was his daddy, I probably wouldn't encouraged him to be a basketball player. I mean, who thinks someone 5'7" will make it in the NBA?
That is basically the problem with blacks and engineering. The odds that a black man will make it in engineering is about like a person 5'7" making it in the NBA. So on one hand you want to encourage them, and tell them they can be anything they put their mind to, on the other hand you want them to have realistic goals.
This question touches on the hypocrisy of racism which exists in the grey areas of our society. Here are some examples;
Is it accetptable to you (esp. if you are a liberal) to perpetrate any of the following.
1. Choose to date or socialize with (dating sites esp.) only
certian races of people ex. (AF looking for WM only) or (BF looking for BM only)
2. If you are a female of a certain race and a male of another race approaches you, is it o.k. to use rude displays to deter him even if your not sure he has romantic intentions?
3. In social settings, is it o.k. to ignore a person based on race, because you don't usually socialize with this particular group of people?
4. Is it o.k. for workplaces to give preference in hiring to certain ethnic groups to facilitate workplace harmony or for pre-conceived notions that any particular ethnic group are more controllable and thus more productive?
I am a libertarian.
1. Yes, it's ok to date whomever you are attracted to.
2. No, it's never ok to be rude to anyone.
3. No, it's not polite to ignore anyone.
4. No, it's illegal to discriminate against anyone based on ethnic origin, gender, race, etc.
As for the racial differences, they simply exist, and there is no way of getting rid of them by any practical means. My part of this discussion was less intended to be about bigotry, and more a discussion about the need for diversity. In which, there is no need for any level of racial, religious, or cultural diversity within the same territory. History does not indicate that any good has ever come from diversity. On the contrary, a significant amount of war and conflict has come from diversity. Such as this silly argumentative thread, which only exists because stupid greedy capitalist Americans brought slaves to this country, and continue to support the influx of cheap labor(the new-slavery). So they can benefit, while this country is being torn apart.
Uhhhh.... Did you even read your article all the way through? Ultimately it supports the opposite of what you are saying.
Ethnic diversity in itself is neither good nor bad for people. It's the people who decide whether or not they will view each other cordially despite superficial racial differences. The reason why diversity has not been historically rewarded is because people have been historically irrational and xenophobic, and treated people of different races worse than people of their own race.
Diversity of experience (regardless of race) will benefit a group by giving the group new insights. And by providing checks and balances.
I don't believe in purposefully assembling a group of people based on trying to generate ethnic diversity. It means nothing. To purposefully assemble a group based on ethnic similarity is equally meaningless.
Uhhhh.... Did you even read your article all the way through? Ultimately it supports the opposite of what you are saying.
No I don't think you read the article all the way through. Most of the article speaks of the myth about math and male dominance. Then it shows that in some countries women have closed the gap between men and math scores entirely. And in Iceland, women are actually outperforming men in math. With the connection being made is that since women are more "free" or emancipated in Iceland(and many other European countries) that women would be less limited, and would perform better in math, or equal to their male counterparts.
That is the part that you read. But that isn't the part that is important. The important part is that in EVERY COUNTRY women outscore men in reading. In Iceland where women outscore men in math, is where women outscore men in reading by the most. And even in Iceland, where women outscore men in math, men still outscore women in one section of math, Geometry. And geometry is the most visual part of mathematics. Scroll down and read the section "Social equality, or just biology at work?".
Quote:
Ethnic diversity in itself is neither good nor bad for people. It's the people who decide whether or not they will view each other cordially despite superficial racial differences. The reason why diversity has not been historically rewarded is because people have been historically irrational and xenophobic, and treated people of different races worse than people of their own race.
The problem with ethnic diversity is that, people of different backgrounds tend to have different values. This causes a level of infighting and disagreement. Secondly, people have an inherent desire to blame all their problems on others. Who better to blame your problems on than people who not only disagree with you, but who are easy to spot in a crowd.
Quote:
Diversity of experience (regardless of race) will benefit a group by giving the group new insights. And by providing checks and balances.
You are being a little delusional. Sure, diversity of experience is important. But important to what end? You can break down benefits usually into two brackets, social benefits and economic benefits.
Does it benefit us economically to have ethnic diversity? Lets think about economics for a minute. What is it that America does? We make cars, so does Japan and Germany. Both are the opposite of diverse, and both have better car manufacturing companies than we do. We make military equipment. But what effect has diversity had on that? Basically zero. We make medical equipment. What effect has diversity had on that? None. The other thing the United States does is have a strong financial sector, stocks, bonds, and investments. What has diversity really done for the financial sector? Very little.
There are only two things that diversity has done for this economy.
1) Has brought in plenty of low-wage workers to fill labor needs(while also displacing current workers in those fields).
2) Has supplied international corporations with connections to foreign markets.
Basically, it has really only benefited the rich capitalists. The international investors and bankers. And has created a new class of slaves, who unintentionally undermine social measures to create a level of equality in wages. Basically, the rich get richer.
As for the social benefits of diversity. There are absolutely zero that I have noticed. Diversity pulls us apart as a nation, and turns us into a bunch of bickering tribes.
Quote:
I don't believe in purposefully assembling a group of people based on trying to generate ethnic diversity. It means nothing. To purposefully assemble a group based on ethnic similarity is equally meaningless.
Thats where you are wrong, and you seeming to be a liberal, you should understand this also.
If you look at the happiest countries, with the most stable governments, and the most equality. You will always find small homogeneous nations.
There is an extremely high correlation of inequality, instability, and unhappiness in large countries with large amounts of diversity.
The countries of Europe have had one major issue in recent years, immigration. Immigration is going to eventually destroy the social systems in Europe. There has already been a resurgence of far-right ideas in many countries in Europe, most of these groups focus primarily on immigration. But also tend to talk about the generous benefits that are handed out so disproportionately to these immigrants.
People who are similar generally get along well, and they tend to want to work together, and see each other as sort of equals. People who are diverse tend to disagree, they tend to not want to work together or compromise, and they see each other as ignorant and inferior.
There is no real benefit to having diversity, but there is plenty of benefit to having similarity. And ethnocentrism and nationalism is especially good because it creates a level of competition between different groups, which generally leads to better technology and innovation.
I mean, if countries didn't compete with each other, a great deal of innovation just wouldn't exist. Think of the cold war, think of all the technology that came out of the military. Think of the United States sending a man to the moon. Think of nuclear energy. Think of computers, the internet, etc. We need competition. Competition is good.
A version of nationalism is observed in sports. Where you root for your home-team, who is under incredible pressure to win. If you were to take this diverse/who cares who wins we are all equal approach, where everyone is supposed to be happy about the accomplishments of everyone else. Then sports(as in the rest of life) would become mostly meaningless.
But seriously, do you really think black people wouldn't be happier if every single person in this country was black? Or how would native-Americans feel if this entire country was nothing but native-Americans? I mean, just imagine it. It would be sort of like living in Europe, except without the white people. Europe is the happiest part of the entire world. Blacks could actually be happy again, they would have control of politics. They would be the CEO's of all the corporations. They would have the wealth and the prestige. No more whitey trying to keep you down. No more anger. No more racism. No more feeling discriminated against just because you are black(whether it is true or not). No more negative stereotypes.
Does that not sound wonderful to anyone else?
Last edited by Redshadowz; 09-22-2010 at 01:18 PM..
This isn't directed at anyone in particular but does it seem that there might be a correlation between post length and unemployment? I mean, I know I wouldn't have the time to write as much as some posters unless I was unemployed.
In hte past two pages I think only one person has responed to the OP's original topic.
That is the part that you read. But that isn't the part that is important. The important part is that in EVERY COUNTRY women outscore men in reading. In Iceland where women outscore men in math, is where women outscore men in reading by the most. And even in Iceland, where women outscore men in math, men still outscore women in one section of math, Geometry. And geometry is the most visual part of mathematics. Scroll down and read the section "Social equality, or just biology at work?".
Actually no, the article does not claim as much as you have claimed. Nowhere does it say that boys score better at geometry than girls. Amongst themselves, boys score better at geo than arithmetic. Girls score better at arith than geo. The conclusion I get from this article is that social equality does a lot to close the gender math gap, and the rest (the fine detail, minute differences) may be determined by biology. Furthermore, the biology of gender differences relies on sex hormones affecting brain development. You cannot then apply this example broadly to inter-ethnic differences.
"But no matter how much girls narrow the gender gaps in geometry and arithmetic in more gender-equal countries, boys always score higher in geometry than arithmetic, while the opposite is observed for girls. So the between gender differences in a single discipline—reading or math—certainly appear to be influenced by social features, but the within gender differences between reading and math, and between arithmetic and geometry, appear to be much more stable across environments, suggesting possible biological roots."
I'd hate to ruin your ethnocentric utopia, but people from the same ethnic background tend to try and find difference within the group based on a number of criteria (regional differences, socioeconomic, religion variances in skin color), and to discriminate against each other and have conflicts based on these differences even though they are minute. You can never have harmony based on race alone. If what you are saying is true then men and women (with their genetic differences) should really live apart in different countries in order to create harmonious societies.
Painting me as a liberal is a mistake that most conservatives do. For the record, I'm not a liberal nor am I a conservative. If I were a liberal I'd believe in crap like "increasing diversity through affirmative action".
In your list, you are forgetting about something positive and neccesary that "diversity" has brought to this country. Highly educated foreign graduate students in science and technology, who go on to populate our academic institutions. A majority of Ph.D. level workers in science are indeed immigrants or american-born non-Caucasians. Without them I think we would be lacking in the talent pool, it is sad to say. From this basic science sector comes all the innovations that makes up our industries with real products (not service/finance).
Quote:
This isn't directed at anyone in particular but does it seem that there might be a correlation between post length and unemployment? I mean, I know I wouldn't have the time to write as much as some posters unless I was unemployed.
In hte past two pages I think only one person has responed to the OP's original topic.
Sadly I am working about 90 hours this week, and my work is continuous without break times or internet time, maybe like 3 minutes to go to the restroom in a 12 hour shift.... *cry*
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
