I’d vote for him. Highlights from his platform:
End the current superstitious rituals at airport security that any fifteen year old could figure out how to get around. Instead, require every passenger to rub a lucky rabbit foot.
Put the “pro-life” back into “nuclear non-proliferation” by unilaterally scrapping all of our nuclear weapons.
New high priority task for the Army Corps of Engineers: Build drive-in movies. Everyone loves drive-ins.
New policy about gays in the military: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Care. Be Fabulous.”
Tough new copyright law provides works with a full fifteen years of protection…one more than our Founding Parental Units intended.
Government offices will use open source software unless they’re being punished.
I’m tired of tough justice. Let’s get some tender-hearted judges on the bench.
Since we’re not trying to turn out standard kids, why do we educate them to pass standardized tests? New option: To get a high school diploma, either pass a standardized test or be a wiseass in public.
I’d be wrong in public. A lot. I’m good at that!
Any senior government official who does not blog has “[bureaucrat]” appended to her title.
Secretary of the Internet becomes the first wiki-based cabinet post.
I will never ever clear brush on vacation.
David is, of course, kidding around — but many a true word, etc.
Update: oh, nooooo!
In the course of promoting next year’s Science Blogging Conference, Coturnix writes:
Jean-Claude Bradley is the pioneer in the use of blogs in science in the way that too many of us are still too scared to do – posting on a daily basis the ideas, methods and data from the lab.
Not all of us are scared. I have colleagues with legitimate claims on all of the work I am doing at the moment, and none of them are willing to go to open-notebook. I anticipate even having trouble with my refusal to deal with Elsevier and my intention to publish only in open-access journals.
I’ve been in this lab a year, so everything I’m doing is directly based on someone else’s data and ideas — that is, to such an extent that I do not feel I can insist on an open notebook. Recently, though, I applied for funding to start an entirely new project. This will not mean that I can suddenly ignore my colleagues’ wishes, but it will put me in a stronger position to say, “well, this is my project, and I want to do it this way”.
I think of it as just another experiment. If I’m right, open science is a better way to work, and the benefits of choosing a better model will become apparent to my colleagues, and so open science will spread from early adopters like Jean-Claude (and, soon, I hope, me). If I’m wrong, I’ll fail — but I’ll fail on my own terms, and I can live with that.
From Lindsay: seven women have been condemned to be stoned to death for “crimes against chastity” in Iran. Ali Eteraz has the details on what you can do.
What I can’t stop thinking is: who throws the stones? What goes through their minds as they kill another human being that way?
And where does a society keep people like that when they’re not “working”?
Update: to be clear, all death penalties are barbaric and the psyche of anyone who carries out such a sentence is an unhappy mystery to me. I oppose the death penalty everywhere and in all forms, but this particular sentence for these particular “crimes” (do read the background) is especially horrible.