NASA chief's wife to Obama: Don't fire my husband

$57,000 for a book of speaches? Seriously? Shouldn't that money be going toward something like space exploration or competing with Russians? Wasteful. Tsk, tsk.

Having someone who's background is in the areas of expertise that NASA has..isn't bad thing. It's a very good thing. So keeping the guy may be the most logical thing to do.

As well, putting a new man in who's vision and directions may be totally different than the continuing actions that are 'in situ' at NASA can be VERY, VERY expensive, Billions of $ in fact, -in costs- can be incurred to have the agency conform to the directions and desires of a NEW ego at the helm.

This is why the other side of the coin of '4 year political terms' is VERY expensive and destructive of working schedules and projects. Life does not operate on 4 year election cycles, so the backside, the downside of the election process is a severely reduced efficiency of the machine(s) of the public offices. Besides the bending and shifting of public office directions and funds for personal political nefarious purposes (through new political appointment of stooges to head the big offices - by the white house), which the US and other countries are rife with, with regards to the infection of their public corps or offices. (FEMA, CIA, FBI, FDA, SEC, IRS, etc, etc) The Bush administattion practically single handedly destoyed the quality and validity of ALL public offices that he appointed new heads of,and basically left giant bombs of impending disasters in the system that the new people will have to deal with and be blamed for when in fact, the Bush crew did the damage-and in the extreme. think about that for a while, what kind of scum would do such things?

So.....IF.... NASA follows under that auspices, so I say leave A man in the job who has expertise in projects at hand, ie DO NOT REPLACE HIM an accountant or turd polisher like a 'effin' politician or one who give blowjobs for political favor.

While you're right, changing the head of an organization like NASA can cost billions. There's actually a very good reason to do it. NASA is rife with very smart people, very set in their ways. As a place of innovation, that can be a 'bad thing'. Also, since we're currently in one of the top 3 recessions of the past century, the extra spending could be a good idea.

That said, Okeefe might be in the right spot, he might not be. That really depends on what Obama plans for NASA. One of the few ideas I liked out of BushCo was the Moon and Mars goals, so hopefully that will stick around.

Its time for a new captain, one with future vision.

The counter-petition is available here:

http://www.ipetit...ffinNow/

It's a well-written argument and worth signing if you agree that Griffin should go.

How about a petition to get rid of James Hansen? I'd sign that!

How about a petition to get rid of James Hansen? I'd sign that!

As would I.

"If You Are Looking Under the Hood, Then You Are Calling Me a Liar" If you're not a liar then you have nothing to hide.

I'll even give hansen a ride out of town...

just close down nasa it jsut waste of money

and come public witht he secret space program that they have alreadsy mining th moon and mars

I think, no matter who ends up as the head of the agency, NASA needs some serious financial oversight. It's important that we continue the space programs, but they need to be done more cost efficiently than they have been in the past.

Now he has to be sacked just to show this kind of campaigning is NOT acceptable.

A. His wife is an 100% idiot.
B. Based on conclusion in 'A' above, so is he (for having married her).
C. FIRE HIM NOW!