This is part 3 in the NASA James Webb Telescope naming controversy! Make sure you've listened to the first two! When NASA decided to keep the name James Webb for their telescope, the decision was so abruptly made and hastily communicated that not just one but several journalists submitted FOIA requests to see what actually happened. This trove of emails is the result of that. I take you through the highlights and lowlights. There are SEVERAL smoking guns in these emails. Not only were those not mentioned in the NYT coverage, these emails were not even acknowledged at ALL. They tell quite a different story about how this was handled, and it's not good. Like very not good. Oh and Hakeem Oluseyi is full of shit.
Anywhere you see diversity, equity, and inclusion, you see Marxism and you see woke principles being pushed.
Wokeness is a virus more dangerous than any pandemic hands down.
The woke monster is here and it's coming for everything.
Instead of go-go boots, the seductress Green M&M will now wear sneakers.
Hello and welcome to episode four of Where There's Woke.
This is the third in the series on the NASA James Webb telescope naming controversy and the New York Times awful anti-woke coverage of it.
But there's so much more than just that here.
Today we're finally getting to NASA's damned emails.
I will do my best not to repeat myself too much, but I simply cannot fathom in a billion years writing a story for the New York Times about this incident, and not even including a mention of the FOIA'd emails that were completely available, publicly available, before Michael Powell's story was published.
They were available, they disprove a lot of what Olishay said, so you'd think that would be relevant to that story in that podcast episode, and they also paint a really dismal picture of what happened here.
So, I know this is a bit of an uphill task, trying to make an episode where I read emails interesting, but I promise there's some big stuff in here, especially toward the end.
Why don't I tell you about it?
Let's get through the emails.
These encompass about a year, starting from when Oluseyi wrote his article, right after that was when the emails start, to about a year later when the whole thing was done, when NASA, as you already know, decides to just keep the name James Webb and The process was so batshit terrible that several reporters, not just one, several reporters immediately submitted FOIA requests to find out what in the world happened.
So that's why we have this.
Once again, not at all to mention, sorry, but I won't harp on that too much.
So let's go through this and maybe you can see why these reporters were just so baffled at what went on here.
I can't figure out why Olashile dropped his article when he did.
He released it two years after he left NASA.
I'm not even sure I said that last episode.
Makes his story even weirder.
Look, I'm not going to belabor it, but if you'll recall, his story that he told on a podcast that goes out to the world was, starts his job at NASA, goes in, tells them about this thing he's super concerned about, even though he's done nothing for a year and however many months he sat on it.
And they say, Hakeem, can you look into it for us?
And so I do.
It's official business and I leave no stone unturned.
And I remember all that story.
And then I don't think I said this.
Maybe I didn't put it together until in between this.
He leaves NASA in 2019 and then he writes the blog post in 2021 after he's left NASA.
So I guess he never finished that assignment.
That he was official NASA official business, as they said.
He never finished that in his job.
He just left before finishing it.
And then he publishes, and I don't see any precursors to that.
I can't find any articles that would have prompted it.
It could be stuff that was happening in forums.
I know he referenced like discussion groups and all that.
Maybe that was what it was.
Maybe it could have been because the launch was coming up, but he didn't work at NASA anymore.
That's the weird thing.
So, here's where I'm going to give you a fun bit of information.
I haven't gotten to the emails yet that were FOIA'd, I was just introducing those.
They only go back to about then, and they have certain keywords.
I talked to one of the reporters who issued the FOIA request.
What they don't include is further back, and they don't include any Hakim Oluseyi emails or anything because he had already left NASA.
Indeed, he's only mentioned a few times, his blog post is mentioned.
So, we here at Where There's Woke have issued our first FOIA requests.
Partially on the advice of Nature reporter Alexandra Weitz, who I spoke to.
She said, why not issue your own FOIA requests to go back since no one did.
Since none of the requests covered this time when allegedly Olashile was tasked with working on this.
And by the way, allegedly when he came in, started the job and said, have you seen this?
So we've done that.
So check back in six months.
Go ahead and pause the episode.
Wait six months.
No, that doesn't make sense.
I'll pause.
No, that doesn't work.
I'm told it could be about six months.
It'll be shorter if it gets rejected.
We'll know in about 20 days if for some reason it gets rejected.
I think they...
Likely try to reject as many as they can.
So we'll see.
But anyway, the point is we're going to try to get that.
We're going to try to get any information that might exist from the time period before that, before 2021, when these emails start.
So put a pin in that, put a six month pin in that.
I'll let you know the moment we hear anything about that.
Very excited.
Okay, the FOIAed emails.
There are 394 pages, some of which are not anything or redacted stuff.
A lot of information is redacted.
Crucially, this kind of sucks.
There's some pretty crucial stuff that's redacted, particularly due to an exemption for like deliberation.
So there's a privilege.
I guess deliberative privilege.
They don't have to give us that information.
They will just give us like the final.
So like if some people were working on a statement, for example, and this is one of the examples, if they were crafting a statement, all the emails that have like, oh, how about this?
And then, you know, different drafts and different additions, different edits.
All those, the statements are redacted.
Some of the stuff is left in for some reason in terms of like describing it, but the statements themselves are redacted, redacted, redacted until it'll say, all right, here's our final statement.
We've done it.
And then it'll give you, it'll let us have that whole statement.
So it makes sense.
I guess they're protecting people's ability to suggest things and deliberate without feeling like all of their deliberations will be aired publicly.
I can certainly relate to that, but there's a ton.
I'm going to try to give you the highlights here.
So it starts off, some exchanges about the state of things right after Olashile's article and then the criticism of Olashile, the straits are coming to save us.
It's right about that time that these emails start.
And it seems as though they're really just starting to get their hands on this problem.
This is news to them, which is weird.
For example, in March 1st, 2021, you'll recall Olashile's article was January 26th or so, 2021.
March 1st, they just seem to be bringing in the NASA historian to the picture.
And our first email of any significance that introduces us to Brian Odom, in this batch of FOIA'd emails, is in response to someone saying, Thanks for flagging.
I agree with Allard.
Let's ask Brian to assess where the truth lies.
There are always at least two versions to every story, and the truth generally lies somewhere in the middle.
Side note, no it fucking doesn't.
That's a terrible heuristic.
For judging the world.
That is just very fine people on both sides, I guess.
Anyway, back to the email.
Worth a discussion if Brian can look into the history for truth.
Data is our friend.
And then we take the appropriate steps and work the appropriate messaging.
That's, once again, March 1st, 2021.
So this seems to be his first introduction to it, after all this.
After all we know, they don't task their historian on it until after Olashile's article, which is interesting.
So it would seem that if Oluseyi says he came in day one 2016 and told everybody about this problem, it seems like it makes it even more weird that nobody told the historian and they just relied on Oluseyi to do the historical research.
When they have a historian, it doesn't make any sense.
So my suspicion is that Oluseyi did no such thing.
And we will find out in one of the several, I think, bombshells of this episode, why I think that.
So Brian says, the historian once again, I'm familiar with Webb's background on this one and would be happy to talk.
From the start, I will say, there is no clear answer that will distance Webb from claims of homophobia.
I certainly wouldn't argue that he was a crusader against LGBTQ, but you can't argue that he did not facilitate that process as well.
During the mid 20th century, and really into the late 60s early 70s, members of the LGBTQ community were placed in the same category as communists by organizations like the U.S.
House Un-American Activities Committee, founded during Truman's presidency.
This process reached a frightening crescendo with McCarthy's Red Scare hearings.
Because Webb worked in positions within the Bureau of Budget and State Department, He would have been involved in implementing policy related to this larger process.
Once President Kennedy selected Webb to serve as NASA Administrator in February 1961, he was instrumental in working to implement the President's policies related to equal employment opportunity at NASA.
As the head of an agency, Webb sat on the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity.
He even pressed field centers to do more and set the standard for affirmative action in equal employment.
Going so far as to imply to the Huntsville Chamber of Commerce in October 1964 that he would move Marshall to New Orleans if they couldn't do better in terms of race relations and EEO.
However, I don't think saying, yeah, he's implicated in the Lavender Scare, persecution of LGBTQs in the federal government during this period, he is, but he was really a champion of civil rights, he was.
And I guess he doesn't finish that sentence.
It sounds like, yeah, it just says, I don't think saying, and then it says that thing.
But anyway, the thrust seems to be, don't do what Ola Chey did, which is say, oh sure, he's implicated in the Lavender Scare.
By the way, implicated is Brian Odom's words.
The historian.
This is the first brush.
This is just, hey, what do you think about this, Brian Odom?
And this is what he gives us.
He's implicated in the Lavender Scare.
And he's saying, I don't think saying that and then saying, but he was a champion of civil rights in this other period would be a good idea, essentially.
But Brian does say, recommendation, don't change the name at this point.
Stop naming things after people, he says, half joking.
That's his own words.
Happy to look deeper into it or discuss as needed.
So that's that first Brian Odom email.
And, uh, it goes on and on.
There's more exchange.
Eventually someone named Gregory Robinson gets looped in, who is the NASA science mission directorate and the program director for the James Webb Space Telescope.
And he writes, And then Paul Hertz, who's going to be a bit of a key character here.
He is the director of the astrophysics division, science mission directorate, says, I predict that a full examination of the facts will leave us where we are now, in the middle.
Webb was neither a monster nor was he a saint.
Rather, he was a bureaucrat subject to the ethos of the day.
We should begin discussing what is the right thing to do if Eric finds no smoking gun, one way or the other.
To which Gregory Robinson writes back, Paul, I agree with all your points.
Hence, the agency needs to think about a potential plan B, whatever that might be.
So then skip ahead to April.
I'm going to have to skip, again, 95% of everything here.
So a month goes by and someone asked Brian, hey, there's a James Webb meeting.
Do we feel prep for next steps?
And Brian says, Brian Odom, again, the historian, says, still working with Eric Smith from Webb Program on the history piece.
Researcher funded by Webb Program to conduct... It's like talking like this is a telegram, I guess.
Researcher funded by Webb Program to conduct the archival research has not been able to access those collections.
Parentheses, pandemic shutdowns.
I think we're still exactly where we were at the last meeting.
No direct evidence either way for James Webb and his connection to the Lavender Scare.
Skip ahead a few days, though, and someone sends a smoking gun email to Eric P. Smith, who then forwards it to Brian Odom, the historian.
Brian and Eric, you'll remember, are the ones kind of doing the history project together a little bit on this.
I'm going to get more into this in the final part in which I dig into the actual history to look at the question of, what do we think about James Webb?
And there's a lot there.
It's really cool.
There's so much, but there is so much that I can't, I can't get to it now.
So I don't have a better solution other than I'm going to reference it a little bit here, but I'm not going to dig too much into it.
Let it suffice to say this email contains a smoking gun and I'll at least tell you what that is.
Quote, I think you will find this paragraph to be troubling.
A custom within the agency sounds pretty bad.
End quote.
And this is about a very important court case we can discuss next episode called Norton v. Macy, which was the first win for a, quote, dismissed homosexual in the court system.
This smoking gun.
Oof, there's smoke.
I can't wait to dig more into this next time, but let it suffice to say the smoking gun is essentially the person who investigated Clifford Norton's sexuality was looking for reasons to not have to fire him.
But was told that firing anyone for homosexual conduct was a, quote, custom within the agency, end quote.
Very bad.
There's a lot more there.
We'll get into it later.
But the important part is this was emailed to Smith and Odom, April 11th, 2021.
They knew about this.
I also want to note that these emails are a jumble.
These are not in a coherent order.
They're mostly in date order, and I'm kind of going through it in the order that it's presented in the PDF, but it does skip around.
So it's not, this isn't like a very cohesive chain of emails, just to let you know.
The way it works is they've provided search criteria, and essentially NASA has given us everything that matches that, and it could be You know, skipping around to like different email chains and these two people.
So just a heads up there.
One I find really interesting is from an outside person and those are redacted too.
So anyone from the outside, outside of NASA that is, their names are redacted.
Either, by the way, either by the reporters who got this or NASA.
I actually don't know which because some stuff was redacted by the reporters who got these FOIA emails from NASA and some stuff was redacted by NASA.
But this seems to be possibly like outside PR consulting.
Let me read this to you.
I think it's really fascinating.
This is to Paul Hertz and Eric Smith.
And it says, here are the talking points and recommendations I spoke to today.
About halfway through the email, it says, recognizing that not all of Webb's decisions and actions during his government service align well with current societal expectations and NASA's values today, a renaming of the telescope at this juncture is appropriate.
Then there's some bullet points on why.
One, want focus to be on science and the mission, not the man.
Want telescope to inherit the moniker of the People's Telescope, after Hubble.
Want to focus on and reinforce NASA's commitment to its core values, including diversity and inclusion.
Want to be a leader.
In STEM engagement and D&I efforts in engineering and the sciences.
Reference wording in diversity inclusion policy statement.
Reference wording in celestial image renaming press release.
Quote, science is for everyone and every facet of our work needs to reflect that value.
Quote, our goal is that all names are aligned with our values of diversity and inclusion.
And so they get to their recommendation.
Those were like talking point recommendations for how to justify the name change.
Then they get to this kind of overall recommendations.
Be proactive.
Preempt the possibility of being inundated with negative publicity.
Develop message and rename JWST as soon as possible.
Do not wait.
Once information in the archives becomes available, NASA will be in reactive mode if it has not already changed the name.
Do not wait.
This is again.
Do not wait.
Attention to this issue will only increase as launch approaches.
Do not wait.
A third time.
You want the story in the New York Times to be positive, not negative.
Well, they solved that, I guess.
Do not wait!
No issue with the hill, if messaged properly.
Now is probably good time as attention is elsewhere.
Establish a committee of five to six diverse individuals to provide recommended name to TZ and NASA Administrator.
Develop post-renaming message to address eventual release of archival historical information.
So we don't know who that was, but I find that really fascinating.
They apparently sought advice from maybe it's PR.
Who knows what it is?
It's actually a .edu email.
Maybe it's a communications professor at a university who's providing this advice.
I don't know.
Who knows what it is?
But it seems to be seeking advice like that.
And that advice is everything that I would think is good advice there.
It's like, hey, this is stupid.
Just rename it.
It's going to be bad if you don't.
Probably.
Get ahead of it.
Doesn't matter.
Just do it.
Get ahead of it.
Do it now.
Rename it.
Don't wait.
Four or five times.
Do not wait.
Do it now.
And we don't know what became of that.
We don't know if they showed that to Bill Nelson, the NASA administrator, the current NASA administrator, who is ultimately the final decision maker on anything.
Maybe he never saw that, I don't know, but that's definitely interesting to me.
Next bit of interesting stuff is late April, April 30th, so about a month after the last thing, and this is Paul Hertz, who I mentioned before, who I find to be a bit clueless on this, because this email is, to me, Pretty bad.
And it's something that people in the community didn't love.
So Paul Hertz says, per our recent discussion, I contacted more than 10 members of the astrophysics community.
Sorry, more than, more than 10.
Wow.
Of the astrophysics community.
They range from senior advisory committee leaders to early mid career and a diverse set.
Yeah, so, what are you doing?
This is the first paragraph of a long email.
Already, what are you doing?
It seems like Paul Hertz took it upon himself to do a little, like, focus group.
Like, run his own little focus group.
And he says more than 10 members.
I don't know, 11?
It's not 20, I know that.
Probably not even 15.
That means 12?
What does that mean?
And while he says they are a diverse set, there are no known members of him, known to him, of the LGBTQ plus community in this focus group.
So this seems pretty worthless to me, but all right, back to the email.
I asked three leading questions and most of them talked extensively beyond answering the three leading questions.
One, have you heard about the controversy over James Webb, the man?
NASA will decide to either change or not change the name of the James Webb Space Telescope.
Two, would you be disappointed if NASA did not change the name?
Three, would you be disappointed if NASA changed the name, but did not name the telescope after a famous scientist or even a person?
There was broad consensus.
Again, yeah, over these 11 people.
The level of familiarity with the story ranged from only a two-sentence version to a fuller understanding of the story.
A typical comment, quote, I have not heard a lot of rumbling except the echo chamber on Twitch.
Okay.
End quote.
Two, nobody said they would be disappointed if we did not change the name.
Hmm, interesting.
Then he gives a range of answers.
The answers range from, it would be ridiculous to change the name at this point, to, if we do not change the name, there will be people who are upset.
Note, I mean, doesn't that show that nobody, again, is a stakeholder and that nobody, this is nobody who is really affected by this decision.
It's just people who are reacting to how people will react.
Anyway, back to it.
Universally, people commented that everyone has an asterisk and most of the community would be okay to not change the name.
Many commented that their feeling would be different if James Webb had been outspokenly anti-gay.
However, several people commented that although they would be okay with not changing the name, there was value in changing the name.
Quote, there's more willingness to change names now.
Climate opened a possibility, taking down statues, renaming buildings.
End quote.
Quote, I would probably change it just to make it go away.
And check this out.
Several people commented that the very early career people might feel differently.
I did not talk to anyone younger than an assistant professor level.
Several people noted that NASA would take a hit from the ruckus stirred up by the LGBTQ plus activists.
Several people noted that this could be portrayed as inconsistent with NASA's core value of inclusion.
This is so clueless, I'll be honest.
This Paul Hertz guy ran his own little focus group, had no, seemingly not very many people whose opinion should even matter in this.
No young people, no gay people, no queer people.
And you notice in all the answers too, that these are people answering as though they're just spectators.
You're asking other spectators about other spectators.
You're not asking people who really have a stake in this.
As in, you know, have a queer identity of some kind.
Or, I don't know, I guess that could be James Webb's family.
I guess that'd be the other side or something.
But look at that sentence.
Several people noted that this could be portrayed as inconsistent with NASA's core value of inclusion.
Well, or it is, like you could just say it is.
I just think it reeks of people who are not affected by an issue spouting off about the issue.
They don't have any stake in it.
They don't have any skin in the game.
This doesn't matter to them other than they don't want the woke mob to win or something.
They're worried about the ruckus that will be stirred up.
This was pretty bad.
I'm going to skip through a lot, a lot, a lot.
Next significant event is they eventually, now we're in May, They eventually come up with a stalling statement.
And they acknowledge this is a stalling statement.
I mean, that's not me characterizing it.
Because they're getting press requests.
They're getting people wanting to know what's happening.
Are you changing the name?
What's going on?
And there's emails, like I said, where they're drafting it.
We don't really see where it starts, but we see where it ends.
This is the holding statement they come up with.
And it allows us to skip through a lot of emails because a lot of the emails in this batch Are them just relaying the holding statement to different journalists?
So here it is.
Quote, NASA is aware of concerns that have arisen about James E. Webb, and we are working with historians to examine his role in government.
NASA named its next generation observatory, the James Webb Space Telescope, after its second administrator who helped establish the Apollo program that landed humans on the moon.
The agency made naming decisions in recognition of Webb's role in retaining an active science program at NASA.
in the agency's early years.
Webb's work as an administrator laid the groundwork for today's accomplishments.
And science remains a critical part of NASA's work to understand the universe, advance exploration, and inspire the next generation.
So that's their stalling statement there.
So they're looking into it with the help of historians, etc.
And they give that to a lot of people.
And something occurred to me here.
You know what's interesting?
Think back to how Michael Powell, again, Ola Che, told the story.
You know what is not present anywhere in these emails that I can see?
Is anyone saying, Oh yeah, well, Ola Che looked into that and, uh, you know, he settled it.
It's fine.
Isn't that weird?
Like if the story is, Oh, Ola Che solved the problem.
He corrected all the, he did all the research.
Corrected those silly woke people who were wrong and they were dumb.
And, uh, he straightened it out.
There's not a single person, even in like the privacy of these emails, that's like, yeah, he solved it.
Olashile solved all that.
It's all, it's all fixed.
And they're all 100% aware of Olashile's piece.
I think that tells you that this idea that Oluseyi cracked it and solved it once and for all, when not even NASA, not even the people who like, are probably interested in defending James Webb, or at least being done with this issue, and just being like, yeah, let's just keep it.
Not even people within NASA, in the privacy of email, are saying that.
None of them are saying, Oluseyi solved it, all done, Oluseyi's... The historian's like, yeah, we gotta do some more research here.
You've already heard him admitting there's a problem, like, yeah, he was there, there's a problem, you know.
You're not going to be able to exonerate him.
He was responsible in certain ways.
I think that's very telling.
Now we're into June.
And you know, there's another knock on Paul Hertz.
Because at one point, Paul Hertz sends an email to a group of people going to something called AAS.
And the AAS is the American Astronomical Society.
And he says, the topic of the Webb telescope may come up in conversations at the AAS meeting next week.
If you are asked, here's what you should say.
And then he gives that stalling statement I already read you.
And he says, God, I hate this.
I'll be honest.
What, what, how much could that have been?
A few hundred bucks?
Anyway.
I wonder if anybody would have responded.
Maybe they didn't because we would, might have it, but hey, nevermind.
How about I pay my own way and then I can voice my own opinion?
Anyway, back to the email.
You should not provide your own opinion on whether NASA should change the name.
At the AAAC, I read that statement and provided the following additional comments during Q&A.
This is actually kind of important.
Yes, there is a timeline to make a decision, but I did not state the timeline.
2.
Whether to change the name is not my decision.
Webb is an agency priority and the decision will be made at the agency level.
That means Bill Nelson.
3.
Whatever NASA's decision, to change the name or not change the name, we will need to explain our rationale.
That's important.
Any questions can be directed to Eric S. or me.
And now we will skip ahead quite a bit further as there's more about the Stalling Statement, more stuff that doesn't really go anywhere, more reporters asking questions, and again, more Stalling Statement issued the same one.
And on July 27th, we see that Brian Odom is trying to get access to the Truman Library and the museum, but it's closed due to COVID and they're trying to get access to it.
This sort of begins like a months long quest to get access to it.
Now we're in August, August 12th.
It seems like maybe they're kicking around the idea of doing some sort of like panel maybe or something.
I don't know.
Cause it says from Brian Odom.
Hi, Eric.
I'm still kicking around the idea of redacted.
It looks like, I don't know, six words or so.
You still think that's a good idea?
Here's a rough idea of what that would entail.
Thoughts.
And then we just get a redacted rectangle of stuff.
And one of the not redacted things is potential participants slash topic, then a big redacted rectangle.
So yeah, like some, some sort of conference or something.
And then in reply, Eric P. Smith says, Hey Brian, let me check with Ocom.
Redacted, redacted, so about a sentence worth of redactions there.
Also, Hakim is no longer at NASA as far as I know.
We'd want to, redacted.
We would also probably want to, redacted.
Back from Brian.
Good info, redacted.
I'm working it from the Ocom angle, so no worries there.
So I don't know, not to get too tinfoil hat or whatever, but it seems weird.
It's like they're kicking around ideas to try to, you know, it involves Hakim even though he doesn't work there anymore.
Like, Sort of acknowledges him as a spokesman for James Webb.
I don't know.
Maybe it's just some sort of summit.
Who knows?
Maybe it's nothing, but it just it seems weird.
I wish we had more info on that, but it's all redacted.
And then this is a delightful little thing just to share.
I had to just laugh out loud as there's several emails back and forth over trying to order a $20 book when you work for the federal government.
So it's someone saying like, hey, can you add this book order?
They're like, Amazon's blocked.
We can't do Amazon.
Then it's like, hey, we don't have anyone on our HQ team with credit card capabilities.
Do you have anyone on your business team that can purchase things on a credit card?
And this is all for...
You know, $20 of a book.
It's really funny.
There's like four or five emails about it.
But just in case you're worried, Brian Odom does eventually get his hands on that book, but not until hilariously late in the process.
Now we get to August 12th.
Brian Odom, the historian, asks, The historian who they have contracted with, this is an outside person.
It's actually easy to figure out who it is, but it's been redacted, so I won't say.
And Brian is asking this person, hey, how's it going?
How's the research going?
And that contract historian says, hi Brian, I'm not researching yet.
My contract only came through yesterday, and I'm waiting for the final copy to sign today.
I'm also awaiting approval from the National Archives for my initial registration.
As soon as that all is in place, I can request appointments.
At this time, they are only allowing researchers access on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and only 10 people at a time.
I don't know when I'll be able to schedule my first appointment yet.
This is only for the State Department records.
I plan to go through those before I start the process of getting the legislative records for the Hoey Committee.
Things are slowly coming into place.
That's August 12th, so he hasn't even gotten to start this contract historian.
Now August 20th, same historian to Brian.
I wanted to give you a quick update.
Unfortunately, as I feared, the National Archives are overwhelmed with requests for research appointments.
I finally got my first appointment lined up for September 28th.
Hopefully I will be able to get more appointments in a more reasonable time frame after that.
September 28th.
Remember that date.
Then we get a few more journalist inquiries, you know, the Stalling Statement again, some more of those kind of things.
And then on September 3rd, we get, I would say, I guess a smoking gun is an appropriate name, but it's, I feel like that doesn't do it justice.
This is something I am not going to read to you until next episode.
An intern, a fucking intern.
And I don't say that to belittle interns.
I say that to say this intern has put in so much work.
They did so much.
An intern writes to Brian and another person a massive, several page, detailed, in-depth email going into the entire case, the historical case against James Webb goes on and on and on.
It's so well done.
It's going to be a huge focus of the next episode.
And this is, I mean, this is just pages and pages.
This is such well done work.
It's like a research paper that an intern did.
They weren't even tasked with this.
This is an intern that says, hey, I just wanted to tell you, I'm really concerned about this issue, essentially.
There is so much in here.
I can't wait to read it to you next episode.
But for now, let me read the conclusory paragraphs here that I think are pretty touching.
The trouble with putting a name like Webb's on a telescope is that the name of such a facility will be bound to hundreds, if not thousands, of people's careers.
The name will be tied to their data, their findings papers, and their press releases.
Additionally, as we have seen with the Hubble Deep Field in Ursa Major, the name of the telescope may even end up tied to regions of the sky.
In this time of growing accountability for the Lavender Scare, keeping Webb's name on this telescope may send a message of exclusion, especially to LGBTQ NASA employees and other professionals in STEM.
In my own work as a scholar of culture, in the very first paper I published, I cited the work of a philosopher who I later found out murdered his wife.
This name now haunts my work, evoking the specter of femicide.
I worry that for NASA employees and scientists who use this telescope, They may not even know who Webb is yet, but once his name is tied to his work, they will find out.
I can attest that it can be psychologically harmful and demotivating to have your work tied to the name of someone who instigated systemic harm against people like you.
I realized that to rename the telescope would ruffle feathers.
But I do think the harm that could be averted outweighs the consternation it might cause.
As I write this, I find myself thinking about our NASA partners at Server West Africa, many of whom live in countries in which LGBTQ identities are criminalized.
If NASA were to take a strong position against institutionalized homophobia, By changing the name of the telescope, this may offer a level of hope to many in places around the world where LGBTQ people are still criminalized for being who they are.
In charting a way forward, a NASA tradition worth contemplating is that NASA instruments are sometimes renamed after they reach orbit.
This has been the case with the Landsat satellites.
Perhaps this might be a useful time to evoke that tradition.
Likewise, renaming the telescope after a scientist, for example, might be a great way to bring the focus back onto Webb's legacy while he was at NASA, a legacy marked by Webb's dedication to ensuring that science remains central to the NASA mission.
I realize there are others working on untangling Webb's past as well right now, and perhaps these writings are superfluous.
I did think it was important, however, to support the words I sent to you both earlier.
Please feel free to share this letter with anyone.
I lament that there hasn't been more time to refine it, but the clock is ticking, and I feel I couldn't delay in sending it any longer.
I am happy to discuss or impact the details in this letter with anyone.
While one may take or leave my personal analyses in this letter, I do think the archival materials and secondary peer-reviewed sources speak for themselves.
My huge thanks to you both for your support during this internship.
I look forward to giving my presentation about Server before my end date.
All the best.
I gotta say, this part of it really moved me.
This person was not tasked with this, as you heard.
They wrote pages and pages, again, that I will read to you, at least in part, next episode, of historical research.
Like, rigorous, Historical research, because they cared passionately about this issue, and they were an intern, and they were saying, please think about this.
And I have no idea if Brian Odom or anybody shared this up the chain with Bill Nelson, with anybody, I don't know.
But it certainly did not have the impact at all, based on what happened, that I think it deserved.
This really got me.
Now we get more media requests, more of the same thing.
Essentially the stalling statement.
Time seems to be running out.
We aren't told, we don't know, but there seems to be a timeline somewhere.
Someone wants a decision made by some time.
We don't know what, but there's reference to a timeline.
And, you know, it's because the launch is coming up.
The launch was scheduled for December, if I remember correctly.
And then I think it got delayed at least once.
I'll go to one more quick little smoking gun.
And this is a weird one.
This is just a standalone email.
We don't have what prompted it.
Must have been in a meeting or something.
And it's just from Brian Odom, again, the historian, to someone named Mark Etkind, who seems to be the Associate Communications Director.
That's all it is.
We don't get anything else other than just this one email from Brian to Mark.
And it says, Hi Mark, here's the pertinent information on Webb's time as Undersecretary of State.
Webb's time in government service from 1945 to 1953 as well as his time as NASA Administrator 1961 to 1968, coincided with a period in American history known as the Lavender Scare, a period in which thousands of gay federal employees were purged from government positions due to their sexual orientation.
The Lavender Scare was connected to the activities of Senator Joseph McCarthy and the Red Scare, which viewed communist sentiments as a subversive activity.
Now listen to this.
Webb's direct connection to the Lavender Scare came on February 1950, When his Deputy Undersecretary of State, John Purifoy, testified before the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Appropriations that the State Department had itself purged 91 homosexuals.
The revelation of these firings touched off additional Senate hearings regarding the status of other homosexuals in the federal workforce.
And then there's a redacted line.
Interesting, I'd love to know what that was.
And I don't know why that would be redacted.
Yeah, I'm not sure what that would be, because the whole rest of the email is fine, but then one line at the end of that.
So it'd have to be, you know, maybe revealing Who somebody was, but it doesn't really make sense.
It could be about... If it was something about a person, you know, maybe revealing who the contract historian was, you would expect it to say like, we have redacted, looking into it, because that's usually how it works.
An entire sentence strikes me as very weird.
If it's something deliberative, part of a deliberative process, I mean, who knows?
Who knows if he said like, it's for these reasons that we're strongly considering changing the name.
You know, I don't know.
That's just me guessing.
It's very interesting.
So there's been all that back and forth.
The stalling statements.
And again, I haven't done it justice.
There's a ton in here.
I've skipped over it.
Arguing back and forth as to what to do.
There's the historian planning with the other historian to do research.
Remember I said that, remember that date, September 28th?
Now we jump to September 28th, 2021.
The same day that the contract historian is scheduled to have his first access, first appointment to commence The research that the historians are going to do into this issue, to write a report, to do whatever they're going to do.
That very day, September 28th, apparently overnight after business hours on the 27th, an email was sent out with a final decision.
Patrick Lynch sends out an email saying, overnight report, morning all, the statement was sent to six reporters overall.
Six reporters.
So far, we have seen no one publish a story or tweet about it.
The responses include Weitz from Nature.
That's who I spoke to, by the way.
"Can you clarify the status of the inquiry into this matter?
Paul Hertz has said in the past that two historians, one internal and one external, were looking into the situation.
Is that investigation concluded or is it still underway?" Another reporter, "Could you please tell me if the investigation is closed or still pending?" End quote.
Greenfield, Boyce, NPR, quote, does this mean that the investigation is complete?
Was the decision that no evidence warrants a name change made by the agency administrator?
End quote.
And El Pais, quote, I acknowledge NASA's position.
There's no answer to any of my questions then?
End quote.
If we haven't seen something go out by late morning, we'll need to reprep Paul Hertz who speaks at 1pm to the AAAC.
And then someone named Elise Fisher forwarded that to a group of people, including Paul Hertz.
This is how he finds out about it.
Someone forwards him that email on the morning of September 28th and says, good morning, please see below for the latest update on responses to the web name statement.
Thank you.
To which Paul responds, and I just...
Boy, I just, I can almost feel that, like, I can feel this moment.
9.05am, 10 minutes after getting that email, Paul Hurt's response.
Please clarify.
And then there's a redacted line, which is interesting, and says, may I see the statement?
So Paul hasn't seen the statement.
Paul knows nothing about this.
Paul has no idea until this moment that a statement has been released.
It's unclear if he knew a decision had been reached.
I can't say for sure.
Maybe he did.
But he certainly, we can see in black and white, Paul had no idea what the statement was going to be.
And he's asking for it here.
And then, oh my God, here we go.
Then Elise responds.
Hi, Paul.
And then redacted sentence.
And then it says, this is the updated statement.
Maybe the redaction was a draft statement.
I don't know.
After all the back and forth, all the research, all the everything I've read you for the past however long this has been, all of that, just words and words and words, that heartfelt research paper of an email that that intern sent, the multiple smoking guns I've read, I haven't delved into the history of course, but They're there, and we'll get to them next time.
After all of that, everything going on, all the stalling statements, all the promises of, we'll have a report, we'll issue a full report.
Don't worry, we're looking into it, we're looking into it, we'll issue a full report, all that stuff.
And a lot of that is Paul, by the way, Paul having to do that kind of response.
Paul gets this email telling him the statement that was issued overnight, essentially, that he didn't know about.
Quote, we have found no evidence at this time that warrants changing the name of the James Webb Space Telescope.
End quote.
Dash. NASA Administrator Bill Nelson.
Unbelievable.
Unbelievable.
And that one sentence was emailed to six journalists.
That's it.
It's just the most cowardly thing in my opinion.
I mean, this is, this is such a joke.
This is the real story.
I know people say that and they're usually nuts.
But I'm not saying the real story is the aliens that NASA's hiding.
No, this is the real story.
All of this effort, all of this research, all the historian, by the way, once again, the same day the historian is scheduled to get his first appointment with the archives of the Truman Library, I think it was, to start, and this statement goes out, quote, we have found no evidence at this time that warrants changing the name of the James Webb Space Telescope, end quote.
NASA Administrator Bill Nelson.
And this is how Paul finds out from someone named Elise Fisher just forwarding him it as though he already knew it, by the way.
She's like, all right, we haven't got any response.
Here's the responses we've got so far.
Nobody's tweeted it, but we've gotten obviously a lot of confused responses saying, hey, what about the investigation?
Hey, what about the investigation?
What is that still happening?
Is that still happening?
And Paul just says, what, what, what the hell are you talking about?
Can I see the statement?
And there it is.
Incredible.
And then, and then who knows what this is?
I don't know.
But the email back after that from Paul is just redacted.
It's one line or rather one probably.
Well, I guess it's one and a little bit lines of just redaction and then a question mark.
So just a black bar, question mark.
That's the response.
And Elyse Fisher says, agreed, and then redacted for two and a bit lines.
And then, we'll keep a close eye on it over the next few hours, but if nothing has been made public prior to your presentation, we'll want to regroup.
Per Patrick's note below, we'll make sure to keep you closely updated and touch base before then.
And Paul says, please do not wait until last minute to update me as the meeting is ahead of schedule and I might start early.
Then redacted, and then should I?
Redacted.
And then Patrick emails, Paul, can I call you on Teams or are you stuck in the meeting?
And then Paul responds, sure, call on Teams.
I will drop out of advisory committee meeting.
I'm not speaking yet.
Then we see Brian Odom, the historian, and some other people trying to draft an additional talking point because obviously this is fucking insane that they've gone through all of this, all the months This is, mind you, this process started in January.
End of January.
Eight months later.
Eight months of this.
Back and forth.
Historians.
Reporters reaching out.
Stalling statements.
Eight months.
And then they issue this one line to six reporters.
No evidence.
Keepin' the name.
Bill Nelson.
That's it.
And so then we get a series of them trying to draft an additional talking point because it's, you know, again, a draft deliberative.
It's all redacted.
So they seem to be doing quite a bit of work on it.
And then the last email is, let's just hold off.
September 29th, so the next day, Alex, the reporter I talk to with Nature, is emailing Brian saying, Earlier this week, the NASA communications folks distributed a statement from Administrator Nelson saying that the agency had found no evidence at this time that warrants changing the name of the James Webb Space Telescope.
The PR person who provided this statement could not answer further questions.
And just now Eric Smith at an advisory committee meeting also said he had nothing to add.
Can I ask, have you and the independent researcher who have been looking into this issue concluded your studies?
It wasn't clear from Nelson's statement whether the investigation had concluded or not.
And you and I know, dear listener, that it had barely fucking started.
So then Brian, again the historian who Alex was just questioning there, forwards that to Karen Fox, who is the senior Science Communications Officer.
And she says essentially, oh, we have a new response now.
We can give you more.
And then she sends another email saying, FYI, this is the new response, just so you have it.
It's still fairly short, but wanted you to be aware before I sent it to Alex.
And I'm going to BCC you, not CC you actually.
I don't want to put you in the position of seeming to be fully complicit in this response or to get a reply all with more questions.
Original statement.
This is still Karen's email, by the way.
Original statement.
We found no evidence at this time that warrants changing the name of the JWST.
Question.
Have we concluded our investigation?
Answer.
Yes, we've done as much as we can do at this point and have exhausted our research efforts.
Those efforts have not uncovered evidence warranting a name change.
Question, do you have a report you're going to release?
Answer, no, we don't have anything to report because we haven't found anything.
Unbelievable.
It's just unbelievable.
Listen to this slimy shit.
We've done as much as we can at this point, and we've exhausted our research efforts.
And she's, again, specifically, she's going to BCC Brian because she doesn't even want him to be complicit in this bullshit.
We don't have anything to report because we haven't found anything.
Just nonsense.
And then there's some more, essentially, a bunch more emails that Brian has had to forward.
Because now Brian Odom is put in this position of having told a bunch of people, yeah, we're working on it, doing that research, going to issue a report.
And then all those people are like, hey, what the fuck, man?
What happened?
We got one sentence saying nothing.
And now Brian is getting all these emails saying, what?
What's happening?
Why didn't you issue a report?
Are you issuing a report?
What's going on?
What happened?
Just like five, six of those kind of emails and Brian just forwards it to Karen Fox.
Hey, what do I do?
Are you going to respond to this one?
The same thing?
Then we see an email September 30th from Eric P Smith.
Remember he was the one who was kind of working with Brian on the history stuff.
He's emailing Brian and the contract A historian whose identity we don't know is redacted.
And he says, the NASA administrator sent the following statement earlier this week to several reporters who asked about the web name issue in the past.
Quote, we have found no evidence at this time that warrants changing the name of the James Webb Space Telescope.
End quote.
It's starting to go out today through other media after I was asked about it at an astronomer's meeting yesterday.
I think the research is still important and this statement keeps the door open for that.
Yeah.
And then the contract historian responds to that and says, "Hi, Eric and Brian.
I saw the statement this week and I read the NPR story.
The archives are supposed to reopen October 8th, if all goes well.
They haven't rescheduled my appointments though.
I'm going to try to find an end around to get some of the records if possible.
The National Archives says that their reopening depends on COVID rates in Prince George County." I wish that Prince George County would get things under control.
I can't say that I am happy about the way things were stated in the NPR story.
To which Eric responds, yes, the NPR story did make it seem like we've done all the looking we can, when in fact we've only just been able to access already publicly available material.
Then some more inquiries.
CNN, what the fuck's happening with this?
Hey, what's going on with that report?
What happened?
The investigation?
More of that stuff.
More not knowing how the hell to respond.
And Brian Odom just fores it all to Karen.
And this Karen is a true Karen.
Let me tell you.
And this one killed me.
You ready for this lie?
Karen is just really loose with the facts.
A Washington Post reporter inquires and Karen says, thanks for your patience.
This is on October 8th, by the way.
What I can offer you in response to your first set of questions is a NASA statement.
NASA's History Office conducted an exhaustive search through currently accessible archives, the key language there, on James Webb and his career.
They also talked to experts who previously researched the topic extensively.
NASA has found no evidence at this point that warrants changing the name of the James Webb Space Telescope.
If you'd be interested in interviews about the Webb Telescope's science, it's way cool!
I'd be happy to help you get interviews on that.
Oh boy.
And then we get, I haven't talked about this yet, but from Lucianne Walkowicz, you may have heard me reference them a few times.
They were on the NASA Astrophysics Advisory Committee and they resigned because of this.
This is a long email, but they say, let me be clear.
I'm resigning from the APAC because of NASA's handling of the questions regarding James Webb as a choice for the name of its next flagship mission.
They also say, it is evident from this choice that any promises of transparency and thoroughness were in fact lies.
It also seems clear that NASA would prefer a committee of yes-men, a committee that cosigns things that NASA had already planned to do, or perhaps chides them about moderate course corrections that don't actually challenge NASA at all.
It is also clear that while Sean O'Keefe can just suggest James Webb as a telescope namesake because he thinks it's a nice idea, Queer people are required to justify their opinions via an investigation.
There's a lot more.
It's a very unhappy letter.
I don't blame this person at all.
And then we get a perfect Curb Your Enthusiasm ending to this.
This is incredible.
After all this, October 12th, Adrian Towery responds.
Subject, re-book order, James Webb Research.
Ordered, Amazon shows it arriving, 10-14-21.
10, 14, 21. Bomp, bump, bump.
I mean, it couldn't be better.
It really couldn't be better.
Yep.
The book, the book's coming.
There you go.
Coming October says Amazon.
God, that's hilarious.
And then included is a one rant.
This might be from a different sort.
I don't know.
Cause this is sort of out of sequence, but it is from October 13th and it's Kristen Erickson, someone who I'm hoping my FOIA request maybe reveals more about.
We'll see.
This is an email thread.
Kristen Erickson to Paul Hertz.
October 13th.
Hi, Paul.
Ready to smoke some guns, everybody?
Light em up.
Hi, Paul.
I know you and I have not had a chance to chat about this in the two years since I asked, with Eric's blessing, Hakeem to look into this matter.
Two years.
Let me go over that again.
Everybody remember Hakeem's version of this fucking bullshit story.
Here it is.
October 13th, 2021.
Kristen Erickson, who is, by the way, Director of Science Engagement and Partnerships.
That's nothing to do with anything.
That's not a James Webb person.
That's not a communications person.
I mean, it kind of is science engagement, I guess, but science engagement and partnerships?
Doesn't really seem to be anybody directly relevant to this.
And she sends an email, October 13th.
Hi, Paul.
I know you and I have not had a chance to chat about this in the two years since I asked with Eric's blessing Hakeem to look into this matter.
My two cents.
Today's cancel culture should not sway the facts or evidence.
There is no evidence.
Proven attribution given to different Secretary of State, not Webb.
Good luck today and know that I am in your corner.
To which Paul responds, Kristen, this is an administrator's decision.
He has decided.
And then there's a redacted thing.
P.S.
The administrator agrees that there is no evidence.
The full text of his decision statement is, quote, we have found no evidence at this time that warrants changing the name of the James Webb Space Telescope.
The problem for most of the astrophysics community is not the decision itself, but the lack of rationale to explain why this is the appropriate decision.
For some people, the problem is the decision.
Also, the process.
The decision was announced by sending that one sentence in an email to six reporters.
That is hardly the kind of transparent process that gives the external community confidence.
To which Kristen responds, I think taking the high ground is the only option.
Otherwise, some of the behaviors of the community prior to the analysis would come to light.
There is so much more important work to do.
Good luck today.
I don't know who the fuck this is.
And this is her only involvement in this thing was to mention, hey, I'm the one who, I did it.
It was me.
I asked Hakeem to look into it two years ago.
So that would be 2019, shortly before he left NASA.
So if you'll recall, I was pretty fucking suspicious of Hakeem's story.
This is why.
This would appear to be completely contradicting it.
He was asked by someone in 2019 to look into this.
Someone who wasn't involved in it.
It wasn't the...
James Webb Project Manager.
It was not nobody.
It wasn't comms.
It was just somebody, some Kristen, who was not involved at all, except in this part, the Director of Science Engagement and Partnerships.
How fucking weird is that?
And somebody who's clearly anti-woke.
Today's cancel culture should not sway the facts or evidence.
And this was all available, these emails, this was all available before Michael Powell wrote his article.
So he has Hakeem Olachei giving him a line of bullshit that is easily debunkable with publicly available stuff that just proves his story is not correct.
He didn't even ask him.
Michael Pell did not even, he must be unaware of this or just deliberately hiding it.
He didn't even ask him.
Hey, but isn't it weird that this person said in this FOIA request, this publicly available stuff now that's been published, these emails, internal emails.
They said they asked you in 2019 to look into it, and that's like when you left NASA?
Isn't that weird?
At the very least, doesn't this seem like really shitty reporting?
If anyone has listened this far and is somehow not on my side, that'd be an interesting combination of attributes for a person.
But if that person exists, This seems like a pretty massive oversight.
That the person you are featuring, the one side of the Twitter debate you're featuring, is giving you bullshit that is contradicted by publicly available information.
Amazing.
It's amazing.
I'm in disbelief.
So that's what really happened at NASA.
Some people defended to the death a fucking status quo that made no goddamn sense.
That was decided by one Bush administration asshole.
We just said, ah, James Webb, that makes sense.
Let's do that.
Signed off on by Bill Nelson, a NASA administrator, whose decision was essentially, oh, yeah, you know, we should honor NASA administrators with the highest honors.
I'm going to sign off on that as a NASA administrator.
Incredible.
So now how do you feel about that report that Michael Powell referenced in the daily episode that confirmed everything?
He didn't mention that it happened long after the decision was made, and he didn't mention Do you feel like you've been misled by the New York Times a little bit?
The researcher they hired was extremely unhappy with the fact that the decision was already made before he even started.
By the way, it sounds like from that last email, he didn't even get in.
I think maybe his appointment was canceled or something.
I'm not even sure he got in on the 28th of September, but that's when he was scheduled to start to get in.
Do you feel like you've been misled by the New York Times a little bit, a little bit on this?
Now, let me ask you how much stock you would put in that historian's report, Brian Odom's final report, which we'll definitely talk about next episode.
How much stock would you put in that?
The decision has been made already.
You're stuck in a position where your boss's boss's boss's boss, or whatever, the administrator of NASA, Bill Nelson, has signed off, has decided it will be named the James Webb Space Telescope.
Do you think your report's going to be very objective in that circumstance?
Do you think the report is going to contradict Bill Nelson?
What you'll find is the report that Michael Powell says was comprehensive and covered everything, looked into all of it.
You'll find that it very, very specifically did not do that.
I think Brian Odom did what I think a lot of people would do in this situation.
Brian Odom found a way to not be lying, per se, although he did leave a lot out.
He lied by omission.
But he found a way to write a report that very, very specifically looks at two claims and says, we don't have evidence for these claims.
That's it.
I mean, honestly, that's the game theory correct answer to what to do.
Your boss's boss's boss's boss has decided You're writing a report long after the fact.
You know there's some there there in terms of James Webb, but you're stuck.
So what do you do?
You write a report that is very careful in what it claims, and it only claims very limited things.
It claims that James Webb did not lead the lavender scare.
It did not lead the effort to fire a bunch of gay people.
Cool.
You found no evidence for that very specific claim.
By the way, don't even really counter it.
Just found no evidence for that very specific claim that you decided to do a report on.
So they worked for about a month and a half after this, and he released that report on November 18th.
I'll just read this one paragraph from his kind of conclusory statements here.
No evidence has been located showing Webb knew of Norton's firing at the time.
Because it was accepted policy across the government, the firing was highly likely, though sadly, considered unexceptional.
We do not know if Webb knew of the Norton v. Macy case in 1969.
There is no evidence found to support that he did.
So there you go.
No hard evidence saying he knew about some stuff.
But let me ask you this.
I just read you a bunch of emails that were FOIA'd, specifically looking into the issue of the naming of the James Webb Space Telescope.
Nowhere in there did you get anything from Bill Nelson.
I mean, again, I don't know for sure if that exists.
I don't know if Bill Nelson uses email or what.
I mean, if he didn't, maybe he only had oral meetings about it.
Maybe he... I don't know.
If at best, we're saying we don't know if Webb knew about this when he was in charge of NASA.
And I just read you a bunch of the emails around this entire thing, trying to figure out why the decision to not rename James Webb was made.
And we heard nothing, almost nothing about Bill Nelson's reasons.
Why he did it?
I mean, there's a lot missing there.
And this is in the age of email.
So forgive me, but I don't find it super compelling if a report written by the NASA historian after the conclusion had already been predetermined for him did not find evidence that Webb knew about something.
So color me not impressed with that report.
All right, now we're toward the end of the episode here and I have to, I'm left wondering how many times can I or should I repeat myself without belaboring the point too much?
I think I just get fixated on just how obviously terrible this coverage was in so many different ways that I just like, I cannot stop trying to communicate how bad it was.
I mean, don't you think it's significant that the report was not even begun until after the decision had been reached?
Whether or not to stick with the name?
Don't you think it's significant that that communications Karen lied through her teeth about that and what was going on?
Don't you think?
Don't you think it's significant that even she was like, hey, um, historian Brian, like, I'm not going to cop you on this.
I don't, you know.
I don't want you to be a party to this.
Don't you think that's worth mentioning in your New York Times story?
Don't you think it's worth mentioning that the reporters who received that one sentence explanation were so baffled that they issued these FOIA requests?
I really think that really should have been the story here.
That should have been the story.
That's an interesting story.
Talk about how this happened and try to get to the bottom of it with your New York Times resources.
Interview some more people from NASA and see if they'll talk to you.
And figure out like, how did this happen?
All for what?
By the way, I think this is the fair and I won't say objective because I, you know, again, I don't, I don't really believe objectivity is a real thing in journalism.
I don't really think it's a good word, but I do think the fair, nuanced angle and context to put this in is look at what these folks did to keep the name on a thing that just one guy in the Bush administration was like, Yeah, okay, how about, I don't know, James Webb maybe?
And look at what they did!
Look how the lengths they went.
They said they would have a full explanation when they decided.
No, they didn't do that.
They just issued one sentence summary to six journalists in the middle of the night.
How weird!
Isn't that weird?
It's just so unjust.
To turn that into a story about how, oh no, actually the whiny woke people were the ones who were in the wrong here.
It's so far beyond even anything resembling truth that it got me so mad I started another fucking podcast.
Oh, boy.
But I am very excited I did so because there's so much more to cover.
All right.
The final episode in this series, I promise.
The final, final episode digs into the actual history because it's super fascinating.
It's not just about punching the New York Times a few more times.
I mean, look, there might be a jab.
I'm not going to lie.
But it just is about the history itself, which is fascinating.
The amount that it was twisted by Ola Che and others.
And also the broader question of how should we judge people from the past in which contexts?
And how do we reckon with really shitty things that We did in the past.
So it's really cool.
There's so much there.
So I want to thank you so much for listening to Where There's Woke.
There's going to be a bonus episode coming up pretty soon.
I've gotten a lot of responses to the Elevator Gate episode.
Well, I say a lot.
I've gotten a few responses to the effect of, hey, haven't you seen The Amazing Atheist has changed his tune?
He regrets what he did.
He's whatever.
And they sent me a few videos to review that claim.
And I think that's at least worth a bonus episode for patrons.
So make sure to go to patreon.com slash where there's woke if you're interested in that kind of thing.
And of course, I will have the amazing Lydia Smith on for that one for sure.
We'll see if I can get anybody else, but at a minimum, my beautiful, amazing wife.
So we can dissect that issue.
Let's see.
Did this guy change?
I'm a little skeptical, but we'll review that.
That bonus episode coming up on Patreon.
So if you're already there, thank you so much for supporting this show.
It really does mean so much to me.
It's vitally important.
If you're not there, consider joining.
Ad-free episodes, bonus episodes, the right to vote in the poll that decided that we would continue with this series overwhelmingly.
All kinds of good stuff.
All right, I'll see you for the next and final part of this series in a week.
