Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "TJ and Joe's Tara Problems."
Now some NASA videos. First video is This Week @ NASA, an apparently weekly program. This one focuses on landing on Mars.
This next one is US Vice President Kamala Harris, on Earth, speaking with Victor Glover who is orbiting above us in the International Space Station.
And this one is NASA renaming the DC building Mary W. Jackson Headquarters Building.
And here's NASA's press release about the renaming:
On Friday, NASA celebrated the agency’s first African American female engineer, Mary W. Jackson, with a ceremony to formally name the agency’s headquarters building in Washington in her honor.
Jackson began working at the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) – the forerunner of NASA – in April 1951. From her initial role as a “human computer” within the segregated West Area Computing Unit of what would become NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, to becoming an engineer, to managing Langley’s Federal Women’s Program and championing equal employment opportunity efforts at the center toward the end of her career, Jackson’s pioneering efforts and commitment to helping others have inspired generations – both at NASA and beyond.
“With the official naming of the Mary W. Jackson NASA Headquarters today, we ensure that she is a hidden figure no longer,” said acting NASA Administrator Steve Jurczyk. “Jackson’s story is one of incredible determination. She personified NASA’s spirit of persevering against all odds, providing inspiration and advancing science and exploration.”
The work of Jackson and others in Langley’s West Area Computing Unit caught widespread national attention in the 2016 Margot Lee Shetterly book “Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race.” The book was made into a popular movie that same year, with award-winning actress Janelle Monáe playing Jackson’s character.
In 2019, Jackson and fellow “Hidden Figures” Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, and Christine Darden were awarded the Congressional Gold Medal – the highest civilian award – for their work. On June 24, 2020, NASA announced its intent to name the building the Mary W. Jackson NASA Headquarters building.
In addition to unveiling a building sign with Jackson’s name, Friday’s event featured video tributes with reflections on Jackson’s career and legacy from a variety of individuals, including family and friends, current and former NASA employees and astronauts, celebrities, elected officials, and others. The event also featured a video of poet Nikki Giovanni reading an excerpt from her poem “Quilting the Black-Eyed Pea,” which is about space and civil rights.
“The recognition we celebrate today is appropriate because Mary Jackson remains an inspiration," said Langley Director Clayton Turner. ”Her perseverance, her empathy, her desire to lift us all – she inspired others to excel and to break through barriers. That is the spirit of NASA. Mary Jackson chose to lead by example and at NASA today we strive to emulate her vision, passion, and commitment.”
Jackson was born and raised in Hampton, Virginia. She initially worked as a math teacher in Calvert County, Maryland, and also held jobs as a bookkeeper and as a U.S. Army secretary before beginning her aerospace career. In 1942, she received a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics and physical science from Hampton Institute (now Hampton University).
After two years in the computing pool at Langley, Jackson received an offer to work in the 4-by-4-foot Supersonic Pressure Tunnel, a 60,000-horsepower wind tunnel capable of blasting models with winds approaching twice the speed of sound. There, she received hands-on experience conducting experiments. Her supervisor eventually suggested she enter a training program that would allow Jackson to earn a promotion from mathematician to engineer. Because the classes were held at then-segregated Hampton High School, Jackson needed special permission to join her white peers in the classroom.
Jackson completed the courses, earned the promotion, and in 1958 became NASA’s first African American female engineer. For nearly two decades during her engineering career, she authored or co-authored numerous research reports, most of which focused on the behavior of the boundary layer of air around airplanes. In 1979, she joined Langley’s Federal Women’s Program, where she worked hard to address the hiring and promotion of the next generation of female mathematicians, engineers, and scientists. She retired from Langley in 1985 and passed away in Hampton on February 11, 2005, at the age of 83. She was preceded in death by her husband, Levi Jackson Sr., and was survived by her son, Levi Jackson Jr., and her daughter, Carolyn Marie Lewis.
The legacy of Jackson and others lives on through NASA’s continuing commitment to diversity and inclusion. Jackson’s commitment to excellence, diversity, inclusion, and teamwork represents not only the best of NASA’s current talent, but also the future of the agency. Embracing an inclusive culture is central to all NASA does and is reflected in the recent addition of inclusion as one of the agency’s core values, along with safety, integrity, teamwork, and excellence.
View photos from the event at:
Read a biography of Mary W. Jackson by Shetterly at:
https://www.nasa.gov/content/mary-w-jackson-biography
Learn more about NASA’s Hidden and Modern Figures, at:
https://www.nasa.gov/modernfigures
-end-
Sean Potter
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1536
sean.potter@nasa.gov
So that's some NASA news.
"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
Friday, February 26, 2021. The US government bombs Syria because, they insist, Iran bombed Iraq. After that 'logic,' we take another look at a Subcommittee hearing (and will probably do that on Monday as well).
The Iranian government is accused of many things. Accused. The US government has long accused it of meddling in other countries -- usually countries that the US government is itself meddling in. A prime example would be Iraq. Bombings in Iraq thought to be targeting the US are blamed on Iran (by the US) just as they were making the same claims back in 2005 and 2006 (usually these claims were given the most airing -- and least questioning -- in reports by Michael Gordon who was at THE NEW YORK TIMES back then). The accusations of meddling have resulted in the US government bombing Syria.
Richard Medhurst addresses the bombings in the video below..
The US military has carried out an air strike targeting Iran-backed militias in Syria, in the first military action undertaken by the Biden administration.
The Pentagon said the strike was ordered in response to attacks against US and coalition personnel in Iraq.
The action destroyed "multiple facilities" used by Iranian-backed Iraqi militant groups, it said.
Militia officials said one person had been killed but a war monitor reported at least 22 fatalities.
Vanessa Romo (NPR) also notes the official response, "The Department of Defense said the strikes are a response to recent rocket attacks against Americans in Iraq, including one in which a civilian contractor working with American forces was killed and several U.S. service members were injured. Officials believe the Feb. 15 attack in Erbil, Iraq, was conducted by Shia militants."
Glenn Greenwald makes an observation:
So in April 6, 2017, Jen Psaki was opposed to strikes against Syria because it was "a sovereign country." Now she's the White House spokesperson. She does need to be asked about this so we can all watch her dance around the question.
Iran's PRESS TV offers:
One person has lost his life and four others have been wounded in the US military’s air raid against positions of resistance forces operating against terror groups on the Iraqi-Syrian border, an informed source tells Press TV.
The casualties were caused in the early hours of Friday, as the American airstrike targeted facilities used by forces of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) — better known as Hashd al-Sha’abi — at a border point in eastern Syria,
To remind Iran who’s boss — rather than conduct the diplomacy he promised — Biden opts to act as ISIS’ Air Force. (That’s who “Iranian-backed militia” have long been fighting)
"For me news is about searching for verifiable actual information and bringing that to the public," claimed Soledad O'Brian when she spoke before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology of the Committee on Energy and Commerce on Wednesday (stream it here). Some rush to cheer her on -- oh, she criticized Rachel Maddow!!! -- and ignore the long reality of Soledad's work. It can be difficult to follow because she's been repeatedly fired from so many outlets. "Not a team player," that was the NBC NEWS eval that led to her departure. They weren't going to fire her for cheerleading the Iraq War. That's this site's focus so I'm not really hear to applaud her for going after Rachel Maddow. When it comes to Iraq, Soledad is a liar and she pimped lies. For anyone who actually knows the record, her record, she needs to be called out. But most people don't know the actual record. And that can be due to the fact that she was all over the place -- hopping here, there and everywhere and hoping to somehow become a star. I don't think most even understand that the 'reporter' (ha ha ha!) 'reports' on sports and has fort he last few years. Before that? The bulk of her career was sitting in front of the camera at a desk and pretending to be an anchor. "I left live reporting eight or nine years ago," she told the Subcommittee.
The role of the press, as she saw it, was "how they can serve their public." Okay, fine, Soledad, please explain how your one-sided presentation of going to war with Iraq helped the public? Let's hear about how your attacking any colleague at NBC NEWS who questioned internally whether more voices -- including voices of dissent -- needed to be on the airwaves.
I'm sorry but Soledad's a whore and all the things she said that are being applauded? She's all talk. Unless and until she takes accountability publicly for her Iraq War 'coverage.'
Carmen Chao. 30 ROCK had Carmen Chao. That was their send up of Soledad. She's desperate to climb that ladder and suspects Avery may be pregnant and that she could grab Avery's CNBC spot. She'll resort to anything, she's completely lacking in scruples. 30 ROCK based that on Soledad.
Carmen was meant to be funny. Soledad is just sad.
As is US House Rep Marc Veasey. He's already started the year embracing and fighting for fracking. The hearing on Wednesday was about the news media. Veasey supports fracking so his comprehension abilities are already in question. That questioning only strengthens after his performance Wednesday.
The news media. That was the focus. So he brought up THE BIRTH OF A NATION.
That's a racist, silent movie from 1915. It was very popular in real time. I'm not aware of the riots he speaks of that the film caused in its release. He claimed riots and other violence. Maybe he's right, I have no idea.
It's a racist film. I ended up with a C -- my only C as an undergraduate -- because of that film. This was being presented as history and it's a film. It's not factual, it's racist. And this was not going to be addressed. The visuals and the narrative and the sweep and scope were going to be addressed. I brought up the racism and the inaccuracies in the film. And got an F on that (which brought my grade down to a C for the course). Fine with me, I spoke my truth and I don't really care (the F brought that.
So I'm not a fan of that film. But I didn't confuse it with news media. Veasey did.
He also wanted the world to know that, as a Black man in Black History Month, he wanted to highlight it.
How?
I was in college decades ago. When I spoke against it, I noted the NAACP protested the film, how this is not about things we see today, this was seen in real time. If you wanted to see it, you could have seen it. Yes, the press applauded in real time (which could have been something to address but Veasey didn't even raise that issue), but many people could see reality and the NAACP spoke out and organized protests.
To me, the NAACP's response is part of Black History and goes to the strength and power of the people. Veasey didn't do anything that noted African-American accomplishments in his remarks. He just offered a bad film and then tried to link that to the violence in DC last month.
Legal expert, Jonathan Turley testified to the Subcommittee as well. He writes of the hearing:
Rep. [Anna] Eshoo insisted that the hearing itself was guilty of the type of disinformation that she was combatting in her letter co-authored by Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.). That itself was disconcerting since we were sharing opposing views on the import of her letter, including widely shared views that the letter was pressuring these companies to drop Fox News and other networks from cable programming.
The First Amendment Argument
Eshoo started out by objecting by reading the First Amendment on the government abridging free speech. She then added:
“The First Amendment prohibits Congress from enacting laws abridging the freedom of speech. . . It does not, however, stop us from examining the public health and democratic implications of misinformation. The idea that members asking questions violates the First Amendment is absolutely absurd; it’s our job to ask questions.”
She then added that she had submitted the letter to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to see if there was such a violation in the letter. The problem is that I did not say that the letter itself was a violation of the First Amendment. Indeed, my testimony said the opposite while noting that free speech values go beyond the First Amendment. Indeed, I raised the danger of letting members do indirectly what they cannot do directly. Asking the CRS to look for First Amendment violations is about as useful as asking them to look for endangered species violations. It was answering a question not asked.
Ironically, the emphasis on the narrower test under the First Amendment is precisely what some of us have objected to in this and other controversies. As I stated in my testimony:
What is particularly concerning is the common evasion used by academics and reporters that such regulation is not really a free speech issue because these are private companies and the First Amendment only addresses government restrictions on free speech. As a private entity, companies like Twitter or publishing houses are clearly not the subject of that amendment. However, private companies can still destroy free speech through private censorship. It is called the “Little Brother” problem. That does not alter the fundamental threat to free speech. This is the denial of free speech, a principle that goes beyond the First Amendment. Indeed, some of us view free speech as a human right.
Consider racial or gender discrimination. It would be fundamentally wrong even if federal law only banned such discrimination by the government. The same is true for free speech. The First Amendment is limited to government censorship, but free speech is not limited in the same way. Those of us who believe in free speech as a human right also believe that it is wrong to deny it as either a private or governmental entity. That does not mean that there are no differences between governmental and private actions. For example, companies may control free speech in the workplaces and companies have been recognized as having their own free speech rights. However, the social media companies were created as forums for speech. Indeed, these companies sought immunity on the false claim that they were not making editorial decisions or engaging in viewpoint regulation. No one is saying that these companies are breaking the law in denying free speech. Rather, we are saying that they are denying free speech as companies offering speech platforms.
Some have noted that it is possible for pressure from government officials to constitute state action for the purposes of an actual First Amendment claim. Thus, they cited cases when a borough president in New York City asked a billboard company to take down a sign or when a village official wrote to a local chamber of commerce objection to an ad. In both cases however the standard involved a dismissal where all facts must be inferred in favor of the opposing party. The point is valid that letters can cross the line as a threat of retaliation or action against a private company. Yet, there are countervailing political speech and legislative interests for members of Congress. Courts are often uncomfortable in drawing such lines between advocacy and coercion by elected officials. A great variety of letters can be taken as veiled threats of possible congressional action. I know of no case where a letter of this kind ultimately resulted in a successful claim. There is also the question of relief. If a court were asked to enjoin Eschoo, what would the court order her not to do? She is engaging in free speech as a representative of her district as well as inquiry as a member of the legislative branch. If the relief is a declaratory judgment, what would be declared? That it is unconstitutional to encourage companies to apply misconceived moral standards?
"Considerably." That's a term US House Rep Robin Kelly needs to learn. She also needs to learn about the history of the press before she weighs in. No, Sandy Hook was not the first widely covered shooting or even the first that noted the killers. It might have been the first widely covered school shooting, I don't know. But I do know that her comments on the news industry just revealed her own ignorance and that's really sad that she shows up at a hearing on a topic and doesn't know the basics -- not even about what she chooses to talk about in her own remarks.
That's an excerpt.
The following sites updated:
-
-
-
Turley and music5 hours ago
-
Call Me Kat6 hours ago
-
-
Perseverance on Mars6 hours ago
-
The pandemic exposes a great deal6 hours ago
-
PARAMOUNT+6 hours ago
-
-
-
Another okie-doke6 hours ago
-
-
-
Featured Panelists: February 26, 202112 hours ago
-
-
-
