I’m kinda busy right now, but y’know, if this gets traction, I may have to free up my schedule. As an added bonus, I might get to hang out with a friend.
But I dunno, do you want these guys running the country’s Scitech?
 |
We’ll promise bacon and a Mintie in every pot.
Sigh. I guess if I get a phone call from the 202 area code I’ll be sure to be on my best manners.
If you went to BadAstronomy.com and found yourself here, never fear: the BA Blog has moved to its new home at Discover Blogs. The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking and all that) is still online, too.
Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. After ten years working on Hubble Space Telescope and six more working on astronomy education, he struck out on his own as a writer. He has written two books, dozens of magazine articles, and 12 bazillion blog articles. He is a skeptic, and fights misuses of science as well as praising the wonder of real science.
Contact me: The Bad Astronomer "at" gmail "dot" com
|
| Bad Astronomy is a Wikio Top Blog! Clearly, Wikio has excellent taste. | |
 | ||
 | Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. |
 |
"Reading this book is like getting punched in the face by Carl Sagan. Frightening, but oddly exhilarating."
-- Daniel H. Wilson, author of How to Survive a Robot Uprising
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
November 10th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Your first agenda item: install the red phone inside a blue police call box.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Phil Plait,
Funny picture
November 10th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Would being appointed science adviser to the president affect your position with the JREF?
November 10th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Phil Plait, bringing dignity and sobriety to the White House.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I prefer Dr. David Brin for that position. He has a 50 % prognostication accuracy.
What’s your, Phil?
I expect anyone stuck in this position will certainly earn their pay. White House politics makes running for the presidency seem like childs play,,,
GAry 7
November 10th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
“But I dunno, do you want these guys running the country’s Scitech?”
Yes! Yes! Yes!!!
November 10th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Phil,
You would be great, but I was thinking Neil Tyson (sp?). It helps that we share a first name
.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Oooh! If you did get, that could be your ticket onto Colbert! That’ll show that uppity Tyson.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
You should be more careful, Phil. What if your fingers had been loaded, huh?
November 10th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I don’t know Phil. It looks like you never contributed to Obama’s campaign at least according to the FEC web site:
http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml
Someone named James Plait in Mesquite, Nevada contributed $225 to the McCain campaign. A relative perhaps? Oooo, say it ain’t so.
Someone named David Plaitt in Brighton, Michigan contributed $208 to a congressman named Michael Rogers. But the last name has an extra T so I’m guessing no relation.
So there are no Plaits in the entire country who contributed to the Obama-Rama campaign at least according to the FEC. Of course, maybe you checked off your $3 contribution for public financing of Presidential elections on your income tax return, but I guess that doesn’t count since Obama opted not to use any of that money.
So this is typically a bad sign in terms of receiving appointments to the governing class. Apparently you didn’t get the e-mail from David Plouffe asking for $30 in exchange for a chance to meet Obama, his lovely wife Michelle, and their two wonderful daughters backstage at Grant Park in Chicago after his victory speech. If only… if only you had gotten that e-mail then perhaps you would have a shot at Science Advisor.
Well, maybe next election.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I guess that would complete your meteoric rise.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Autch, Phil, you do not know what you are doing! I have seen people full of enthusiasm and ideals go into politics only to turn into hypocritical liers and lobby- baits within no time.
Still, I cant think of anyone better for the job!
Approved!
November 10th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
I’d vote yes!
But I’m pretty sure with health care, Africa, and global warming on the table they’ll go with Peter Agre (and he was on Colbert already so….).
November 10th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Wait–hasn’t this blog been ranting about the politicization of science in the White House? Wouldn’t someone a little more neutral be appropriate?
Or is “our” politics better than others?
November 10th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
IA, I was thinking Neil Tyson, too.
This picture needs a caption contest!
Phil: before you get serious about that job, have a chat with Alan Stern…
November 10th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Phil, stick to your day job. Really. Whatever it is.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Cynical me wondered if the earlier politics posts were tryouts for presidential or Hollywood science advisor. I thought that could be unfair but now I wonder. Was I right?
November 10th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
I would support this. Who do we call?
November 10th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
There are some pretty interesting numbers on campaign spending for the last election out on:
http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs
If you sort the numbers from most money to least you get the following list. So Obama outspent McCain by $153 million or 42 percent. He outspent Hillary Clinton by $279 million or more than double. There were a total of 143 presidential candidates. Four of them (Obama, McCain, Clinton, and Romney) spent more than $100 million. Twenty of them spent more than $1 million. 111 of them spent less than $100,000. Thirty of them spent exactly $0 – I guess they were counting on name recognition to carry them over the top (with a name like Hoa Tran Giannibicego why wouldn’t you? – you’re sure to lock down the half-Vietnamese/half-Italian vote).
If you take the top two Democratic spenders (Obama and Hillary) they spent a combined $764 million compared to $482 million for the top two Republican spenders (McCain and Romney). Thus, the top two Democrats spent 58 percent more than the top two Republicans. So I’d better not hear any Democrats complaining about campaign finance anymore – that horse is dead and Obama has the smoking gun gripped in his hand.
Candidate Name Net Receipts
——————————————– ————
OBAMA, BARACK 521,869,310
MCCAIN, JOHN S. 368,609,473
CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM 242,517,659
ROMNEY, MITT 113,605,272
GIULIANI, RUDOLPH W. 64,463,489
EDWARDS, JOHN 62,237,632
PAUL, RON 35,119,157
RICHARDSON, BILL 24,585,985
THOMPSON, FRED DALTON 24,439,260
DODD, CHRISTOPHER J 18,457,188
HUCKABEE, MIKE 16,460,354
BIDEN, JOSEPH R JR 14,132,893
TANCREDO, THOMAS GERALD 8,447,279
KUCINICH, DENNIS J 5,509,630
BROWNBACK, SAMUEL DALE 4,451,259
NADER, RALPH 4,109,285
HUNTER, DUNCAN 3,044,949
BARR, BOB 1,240,265
THOMPSON, TOMMY G 1,227,228
VILSACK, THOMAS J 1,038,467
COX, JOHN H 620,036
JUDD, KEITH RUSSELL 532,837
GRAVEL, MIKE 497,490
KEYES, ALAN L 465,765
GILMORE, JAMES S III 404,879
LAMAGNA, DAL 382,310
JINGOZIAN, MICHAEL PAUL 255,442
BALDWIN, CHARLES OBADIAH 241,934
PHILLIES, GEORGE DAVID JOSEPH 211,173
MCKINNEY, CYNTHIA 187,852
GILBERT, DANIEL AYERS 183,060
CLARK, WESLEY K 112,122
IMPERATO, DANIEL J 88,995
FENDIG, H NEAL JR (CAP) 84,031
ROOT, WAYNE A 79,091
ALLEN, JONATHAN EDWARD 75,482
DEAN, HOWARD 65,420
CURRY, JERRY RALPH 58,817
KLEIN, MARK IRWIN 55,598
BLYTH, JOHN DOUGLAS 48,219
ALLEN, DONALD KENNETH 45,382
WUENSCHE, VERNON EDGAR 38,845
SHEPARD, JACK 31,925
KOENIG, WILLIAM RONALD 30,743
BUSH, GEORGE W 27,097
WILLIAMS, JOMO K MANUAL 24,500
LA RIVA, GLORIA ESTELA 24,231
SMITH, CHRISTINE 17,583
MCCALL, JAMES HATTON 16,776
SCHRINER, JOSEPH CHARLES 16,019
GEPHARDT, RICHARD A 15,959
GRASSO, PETER SAMUEL JR 13,466
WILSON, D WAYNE 13,297
ASHBY, BLAKE 12,189
LAROUCHE, LYNDON H JR 11,545
KUBBY, STEVEN WYNN 11,130
LINK, ALDEN 10,389
HEWES, HENRY 10,280
MOORE, BRIAN PATRICK 9,516
MESPLAY, KENT PHILIP 9,133
SWIFT, KAT 8,840
KINGERY, DANIEL MELZINE 8,787
ROSENBERGER, PAUL RUSSELL 8,500
CARTER, WILLIE FELIX 8,353
MCENULTY, FRANK EDWARD 7,440
POWELL, MICHEL ANISSA I 7,404
HATCH, ORRIN GRANT 7,300
ZILAITIS, FRANK 7,050
ARNOLD, KEITH L 6,744
DORNAN, ROBERT K 6,000
BACON, DANIEL AVERY 5,683
BAUER, GARY L 5,541
PARKER, GLENDA GAIL 5,479
SMITH, RICHARD MICHAEL 5,382
FLEHARTY, RICHARD EARL 5,316
LYNCH, FRANK 5,150
ARANJO, ROLAND 5,011
WILES, VIRGIL L R 5,000
SHARKEY, JONATHON THE IMPALER 4,810
MULLINS, GROVER CLEVELAND JR 4,673
SPRANKLE, KEITH ROBERT 4,468
WASHINGTON, LANAKILA 3,821
CROW, RANDOLPH W 3,665
BOWLES, JOHN TAYLOR 3,305
DUCEY, SUSAN GAIL 2,844
FELLURE, LOWELL JACKSON 2,773
BROUGHMAN, DEWEY R 2,760
VAUGHN, CORROGAN R 2,288
HUNTER, D R 2,285
RUFF, GARY 1,448
BEIL, JAMES FRANCIS 1,325
MCKINNEY, RAYMOND LOUIS 1,310
MUZYK, GEORGE ALEXANDER 1,225
RAGHAVAN, RAJESH SRINIVASA 1,097
KRUEGER, KARL EVERETT 1,029
HOWARD, MILDRED (MILLIE) 898
FORRESTER, MICHAEL KEITH 649
SMITH, CHRISTOPHER POPHAM 595
GREENSPON, JON ADAM 400
SMITH, MICHAEL CHARLES 397
CLARK, RICHARD HOWARD 200
MILLS, WILLIAM LOUIS JR 175
CRUISE, CLAIRE 159
CARROLL, JERRY LEON 140
ADAMS, STEPHEN PAUL 115
FURNISS, DAVID ERNST 108
BANKS, JEDIDIAH ELIJAH WENDELL KENNEDY 100
GONZALEZ, MATT 100
JOHNSON, JERRY ROLAND 20
MIANNAY, ANDY CLOWN 20
BUCHANAN, PATRICK J 1
BARNETT, DANIEL JAMES 0
BAYH, EVAN 0
BEHM, KARL 0
BERG, WILLIAM F 0
BLACK, GREG 0
BORMAN, MATTHEW JAY 0
BRAUN, CAROL MOSELEY 0
CARTER, JAMES (JIMMY) HARLIN 0
CHERRICKS, LIZA DAWN 0
CLINTON, WILLIAM JEFFERSON 0
COBB, DAVID KEITH 0
EPSTEIN, PHILIP 0
FERGUSON, BENNIE LEE BEN 0
FORTHAN, BOB LEONARD 0
GARZA, IDA CECILIA 0
GIANNIBICEGO, HOA TRAN 0
GODWIN, WRENDO JOHNSON P 0
HINCHY, CLARENCE ALLEN 0
HOFF, SAMUEL B DR 0
HOWARD, ALBERT 0
JACKSON, ROBERT G 0
KOCH, DAVID ALAN 0
LEONAITIS, JOSEPH FELIX 0
MACMILLAN, STEPHEN D 0
MALONE, YEHANNA JOAN M M 0
MITCHELL, JAMES CREIGHTON JR 0
MUHAMMED, JESUS BILAL ISLAM ALLAH 0
SANDERS, COLONEL LAUNEIL 0
STATH, JEFFREY DENNIS 0
WILLIAMS, DANIEL E 0
LIEBERMAN, JOSEPH I -119,757
KERRY, JOHN F -9,140,729
November 10th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
RL: No… with Phil, it’s the enthusiasm!
November 10th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I support it, and no bacon or Minties required! You had me at “I’m kinda”.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
You serious, Phil?
I mean, I have no say whatsoever in it (being a dirty dirty forgeiner) but DUDE you would have my support!
BA in the HOUSE!
November 10th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
You know…The capital could use an observatory.
November 10th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
“Wouldn’t someone a little more neutral be appropriate? ”
I really don’t think your definition of “neutral” exists in the science world. after all, both Bush an McCain have done their best to look anti-science.
And having an actual scientist (and a popular one, at that!) at the head of science would be at least sensible.
November 10th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Whether or not my definition of “neutral” actually exists or not, we certainly should strive to have someone who most closely approaches that idea. Phil is an actual scientist and popular no doubt, but his political bent is loudly trumpeted here, and the politicization of science is one of the issues he has disagreed with. It would at the very least appear hypocritical.
November 10th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Jadehawk Says: “And having an actual scientist (and a popular one, at that!) at the head of science would be at least sensible.”
But Carl Sagan is dead!
November 10th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Seriously, it might work if you and Scalzi could find a beard pattern you could both agree on.
November 10th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
David D: if one is a scientist and involved with Big Science in any big way, one can’t SPIT without it being political. When big money is involved, politics rears its ugly head. that’s a given.
November 10th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
@ccp–
That’s a given doesn’t make it alright. Isn’t this about “change,” or at least a change from the last 8 years?
I’m not naive to understand that politics will enter into the situation, esp. in Washington DC. The point I am trying to make is that if you say (as Phil does) that the politicization of science is bad, then you would want someone as science advisor to Obama to be as politically neutral as possible. BA does not make the cut in this regard.
November 11th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Oh, those two will do, fine; just as long as ya’ll dress and act like that on the job.
Then, all the anti-science people will have a hizzy fit, when they discover that these are two…liberal…skeptics who can hold their own.
Yeah, you’ll do; your political stance will fit right in, with the coming administration’s politics.
Whistling as I fade away.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:35 am
hey phil ..or anyone .. what is the name of the store or company in the back ground of the pic above behind phil. the banner reads .. the missing .. but cannot see the rest. i’m dyin to check out the website!
November 11th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
[...] BA spotted it. BA Blog: The Call of Duty [...]
November 11th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
That’s a very good rock n’ roll picture – now learn to play some instruments!
November 11th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Tom Marking: I think they only record donors over $100 or something. I know my mother donated, and she doesn’t show up.
RL: No, you weren’t right. This is someone else’s idea… Phil’s just linking to it. And I don’t think he takes it too seriously…
November 11th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
LOVE YOUR BLOG, AND LOVE YOUT T- SHIRT
November 11th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Who’s the guy in the background getting the crotch massage?
November 11th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I thought you’d make a great SciAdvi. I do wonder how being the Prez of a non-profit affects that possibility, though. Either way, good luck. Our blogrolls are filled with excellent candidates.