How Jonathan Dimock Auditioned To Be NASA White House Liaison

Keith’s note: This is how political campaign staff get a job after the campaign is over — if you were a campaign loyalist and worked hard enough to get your candidate elected (and got noticed yourself), that is. Once the election is over the Transition Team asks you to make suggestions in terms of an agency or department you’d like to call home and then the Transition Team looks at the open positons in the Plum Book. If there’s a fit you then parachute into your new position as a political appointee. In this case current NASA White House Liaison Jonathan Dimock sent an email to Molly Michael and Brian Jack at the Trump Transition Team angling for a job at NASA, or the Office of Science and Technology Policy, or maybe the Department of Energy.
Despite his claims to the contrary, I can’t say that Dimock was all that familiar with NASA since he referred to it as “National Aeronautic Space Administration (NASA or Deep Space Exploration Administration or DSEA)” and cited its “$105.5b budget”. But, when you look at his drive-by science philosophy treatise about how “This puts the age of the world (as we have perceived it) much younger than the “millions and billions” of years that has been widely excepted” and how “oil fracking can rejuvenate the crust and make the surface flourish” I guess I am really glad that he did not end up at OSTP.
—-
From: “Jonathan W Dimock” [email protected]
Date: January 13, 2017 at 2:25:45 AM EST
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Requested Departments
CC: Molly Michael
Hey Brian –
I’ve reattached my resume so you have it on hand and below you will find the quick version and the longer version with more detail. I understand that any position is ultimately a “people position” and the underlying rules of government and politics apply but the following subjects are most familiar to me.
My preference in positions are as follows:

? Office of Science and Technology Policy
o This topic is a natural fit for me. A lot of narratives can be driven or disproven with scientific evidence as long as there are no preconceived ideas walking into it. The mind sees what it wants to see and science is a theory and a means of communicating with other people in the same field, not a fact.
? National Aeronautic Space Administration (NASA or Deep Space Exploration Administration or DSEA)
o Aside from the fact this is based very heavily in science, there is also a large cry to reduce their $105.5b budget and even movements to roll our space program into DSEA. With the help of, and to the credit of, the administration there can be drastic cost cuttings for big wins for the administration.
? Department of Energy
o This is a department that I have had some insight into, specifically the pros and cons of alternative fuels and impact on the environment both long term and short term along with safer alternatives to uranium for nuclear power. I can also analyze and explain complex terminology into digestible language and report on their validity.
To elaborate on the above:
? Office of Science and Technology Policy
o Rule number one of science is that we know nothing. Science is merely a language we have put together to describe what we can sense that fits into other parts of science while not contradicting it. At one point, humanity though the world was flat, we now know this to be wrong, at one point humanity thought that the sun revolved around the earth, we now know this to be wrong. Recently we found out that Einstein could be wrong about the speed of light being constant (something that relativity relied on and we now know this to be wrong). This new theory, which is widely embraced and supported by the expansion theory, suggests that the speed of light is not constant and is either decaying (as the laws of entropy suggest) or can change up or down. This puts the age of the world (as we have perceived it) much younger than the “millions and billions” of years that has been widely excepted.
o All of that to say, in science, we know nothing. We can only do the best we can with what we know and if we are so hard pressed on believing that the earth is warming because of my Buick, then we can find evidence to prove that theory correct. But we can also find evidence that the earth has gone through cycles on hot and cold and gee…..that means that our carbon dating and light speeds change too. This is the same with all types of science. We can prove that oil fracking can rejuvenate the crust and make the surface flourish if we look for that evidence instead of pointing fingers at the oil companies. But of course this all comes down to what makes sensational news or if you are taking a position of defending your business model or political policies.
? National Aeronautic Space Administration (NASA or Deep Space Exploration Administration or DESA)
o Aside from understanding the technical aspect of NASA and the components that goes into it. I can also understand the economics of launching satellites and supplies into space for both private and government entities. We all know that Richard Branson with Virgin Galactic, Elon Musk with Space-X and various investors including Shaun Coleman with Vector Space are racing for more contacts with NASA and others. This is a time when NASA can scale back without huge loss to their operation and we can continue to provide suitable funding for suitable research that benefits the citizens both scientifically and economically. It is not outrageous to believe that a small cut in the $105.5b budget cannot be cut by even a small percentage for a large gain to the taxpayers while providing a big win for the administration.
Thank you for taking the time to review this. I trust your judgement on placing me in a department that best suits the administration.
Jonathan W Dimock
202-744-47**
—
– This Is The Person Who Speaks To The White House For NASA, earlier post
– Trump’s Eyes and Ears At NASA, earlier post