When I learned that Barack Obama had picked John Podesta as his transition chief, I was not impressed, being that he has a crank belief the government is hiding UFOs.

The folks at ScienceDebate don't necessarily agree, though I think they are going to bless anything Obama does, because about Podesta they wrote a few days ago "Clearly, this is a man who gets it, working, it seems, for a president who gets it."(email, no link on their website)

If you're comfortably entrenched at the University of Maryland and not worried about a mortgage like Michigan autoworkers, you can understand why it's important that there will be debate about the actual numbers of jobs at risk.    A new projection by the University of Maryland's Inforum economic research unit says peak job losses from automobile bankruptcies would be half of the 3 million commonly stated in the media. 

And if the University of Maryland is wrong, oh well, no one will lose their job.  

The three million job-loss figure comes from two separate studies, which are technically correct  but based on implausible assumptions, says University of Maryland economist Jeffrey Werling, Inforum executive director.

Well, two reasons; reason one is that if we write about bdelloid rotifers we just make reference to bdelloid rotifers but if they write about bdelloid rotifers, they find a way to incorporate lesbian necrophiliacs into the title.   

Seriously, who is not going to click on that title?   I am sure we can all agree that Safe For Work (SFW, because I am so internet lingo hip after getting a Facebook account) articles with 'lesbian' and 'necrophiliac' in the title are kind of rare.

Most scientists wanted someone - anyone - other than George Bush in the White House.  Not because of budgets, clearly they went up a lot for NASA, NSF and the NIH during the Bush years, but because there was a perception of an anti-science agenda that went beyond what was seen in the past, though that was primarily due to the rapid-fire ability of the internet to magnify problems and the viral ability of groups with agendas to mobilize their audience on the crisis du jour.  In reality, Bush had no more to do with actual science policy than any other president since World War 2 and a lot less than most.

From Esquire magazine, 1949:

"A word to the wives is sufficient.  And the word is NO.  When you have serious shopping to do, leave the pretty things at home.  They can call in a few harpies from the neighborhood, set up a Kaffee-klatsch, tear a few reputations to ribbons, and be as happy as birds."

Now, this is not a Sciencetatorship, you are welcome to go ahead and use these sentiments despite me cautioning against it, but be forewarned that this was meant to be funny even in 1949.  And it's still funny.   But in 1949 they didn't have No Fault divorce laws and community property.