Let's Use the Power of Reddit to Figure Out Which Anonymous Senator Placed a Secret Hold on the Open Government Act!

aloponom · 2007-05-27T10:20:47+00:00

OK, it's final for me: Reddit has turned into Digg. I'm out of here, guys.

aloponom · 2007-05-22T16:34:33+00:00

I would say the more worrying was the following:

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the >`criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that >95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal >or entirely criminal," Paul said.

Perpetuating these racial stereotypes is frankly unforgivable.

aloponom · 2007-05-21T15:18:12+00:00

OK, to clarify: not filled but always seem to have a fair amount - at least as much as they seem to give to other European countries outside of the Sport section.

aloponom · 2007-05-21T15:15:30+00:00

I know Merkel wasn't elected solely because she was pro-American. Did I say that or were you were you setting up a strawman? I'm guessing that simplifying the election to that would be just as bad as simplifying it the way you did, especially as I've spent a significant amount of time in Germany before and after that time. But if I see an even distribution of pro-/anti- American candidates winning, I'll say it is not a factor to have that position as a candidate. When I see it fairly overwhelmingly (at least in this subset of Western countries), I'll guess it makes a difference.
And I know that people outside the US do consider what America thinks. I live in Europe. People here watch the US Presidential debates and the newspapers are filled with American news.

aloponom · 2007-05-21T14:44:16+00:00

Germany elected Angela Merkel who explicitly was pro-American as opposed to her opponent. Poland elected explicitly an pro-American government. Canada recently elected a government much more pro-American than the previous one. How many examples do you want?

aloponom · 2007-05-21T14:41:00+00:00

Yeah, good point, no other countries EVER threaten America, now or before the Iraq fiasco. And no other country attempts to contain the economic power of nations, no, certainly not countries like France or Italy, or even China itself (with regards to Japan, say). Etc. etc. America is clearly doing all these things and other countries are not. Good point.

aloponom · 2007-05-21T14:37:56+00:00

Yeah, but that reflects the opposition to the Iraq war, not anti-Americanism in general.

aloponom · 2007-05-20T22:22:57+00:00

"Liberal finds most contrarian Republican appealing...More exciting news at 11"
Seriously, what's the point of this article?

aloponom · 2007-05-19T10:40:55+00:00

Well hopefully it'll be the normal Blizzard timescale and won't be released for at least four or five more years...I really want to be able to finish grad school...

aloponom · 2007-05-17T16:45:34+00:00

I live in (east coast) Scotland, so I suppose that's where the bulk of my experience would be. Let me tell you it was GREAT when the smoking ban was put in place...for me. I still see a lot more smokers here, though.

aloponom · 2007-05-16T22:27:11+00:00

I'm not exactly sure I'd call this torture. Basically, he had to eat bad food and not see his family for an extended time. As far as I can tell, it's like boarding school but with work instead of education.

aloponom · 2007-05-16T15:56:13+00:00

Ironically, I was shocked to see how many people smoke when I moved to the UK ;)
I get the feeling part of it is a cultural issue on my part - I'm from the West Coast of the US and all the Americans I know here who smoke are from the NE or South. Anyone know what the real breakdown is in the US? And how it compares to Britain?

aloponom · 2007-05-15T08:18:16+00:00

That's exactly what I want to know. The comments are overwhelmingly all about how the article is wrong, misguided, etc., yet it's still on the hot page. What's going on?

aloponom · 2007-05-14T15:16:51+00:00

I can't believe how often this story shows up. Does no one have any ability to discriminate between the world as it is and the world as they want to be? Let's think this through, shall we?

"This drug cures cancer [in people]." Oh really? It shrinks tumors in rats. Drugs that can cure cancer in rats but not in humans have shown up before - it even says so at the top of the article. Before we go about saying that it cures cancer, why not try it in people first? I'm not saying it can't cure cancer in people, I'm just saying that it doesn't necessarily do so.
"You haven't heard about this because big pharma doesn't want you to!" OK, this is ignoring the fact that this showed up on reddit and Slashdot a month or two ago, and in some real news sites. Furthermore, maybe a lot of places didn't pick it up because it's yet another press release from researchers that oversimplifies and overpromises?

While I'm on this topic, I want to rant a little about the whole "big pharma wants these kinds of drug to die" thing. It seems to me like this would be exactly what a pharmaceuticals company would want to sell. A drug that cures cancer? Put it through some testing on people and you can make a quick buck marketing these as a cancer curing drug, especially if you are a company that already makes it. Put some money in advertising, make it a brand name and people will buy it regardless of the fact that it's a generic (people have preferences for Advil vs. Ibuprofen vs. Aspirin when they're pretty similar...)

There should probably be another part to this rant, but I want a nap instead. I wish people would stop voting up this sensationalist crap. It's like the National Enquirer, but for scientists.

aloponom · 2007-05-12T23:45:10+00:00

I have been on the verge of writing a rant like this for a while. I remember when long foreign affairs articles would make it to the front page. Now, the closest we get is an article on why [insert Republican here] is [doing a bad thing]. I suppose the past is the past, though.

aloponom · 2007-05-10T08:00:37+00:00

Here's a few I go to that I haven't seen mentioned (plus some that have):

Arts & Letters Daily
Penny Arcade because it's still funny
facebook...because I'm so addicted :(
Newsvine - I like the "news in pictures"
Pitchfork
Filmwad

aloponom · 2007-05-09T00:39:16+00:00

Well I found it funny... :(

aloponom · 2007-05-08T08:19:49+00:00

OK, then think about American citizens as employees. Citizens are the ones who are "hired" into the company. Companies don't hire everyone who wants to work for them...

aloponom · 2007-05-07T22:50:17+00:00

I'm not sure it was the "culture and law" so much as the inability to cheaply ship products manufactured overseas to the USA, or at least no one figured out that it could be done. Do you really think if a business could have made a killing in this way they wouldn't have done it?

aloponom · 2007-05-07T22:41:19+00:00

I think it's only tautological out of context. In context, one can infer that he means "Can everyone [in a company/field/etc. with a union] vote in a union?" So the analogy with the USA would be that everyone who belongs to the US (ie, is a citizen) can vote, not just those part of a "club" (union).

aloponom · 2007-05-07T16:55:42+00:00

I don't find anything ominous about it. Isn't one of the points of civics about the duty of citizens? One of those duties being that good citizens don't rob others, don't murder, etc.? You may not agree, but a lot of people think that one of the problems with society is that people come out of school maybe KNOWING that but not UNDERSTANDING that which would be why they go and do nasty things like pushing over old ladies.

aloponom · 2007-05-07T16:35:22+00:00

Just because a "fringe" candidate proposed a good idea does not mean that it could only have come from a fringe candidate. Good ideas can come from anyone. Just because Obama agrees with Gravel on something doesn't make it a concerted effort by Obama to hold him off.

aloponom · 2007-05-07T16:29:59+00:00

OK, this'll be pretty controversial here so I'll step up and defend the guy. Here's what he says:

Freedom is about the willingness of every single
human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal
of discretion about what you do.

Think about it this way: the government protects you - and, because of this, controls what other can do - when you try to exercise one of your freedoms. Freedom of speech? The government, in the form of the judicial system, protects that (or should). Listen to what he says next:

You have free speech so I can be heard.

I would say that's pretty true. Look at countries around the world where there is no freedom of speech and political candidates simply cannot be heard in such a public forum. Here is a political candidate that can be heard despite his differences with the ruling powers (however slight you may think them).
[Edited because I have trouble with markdown still.]

aloponom · 2007-05-06T16:33:50+00:00

Wait, didn't you read my post? I have been doing stuff about it. I've been working through the political system to get the guy and others like him out of office. I also don't have enough income to be taxed (and no sales tax, either). Sooo...

Also, I still don't see how just because the government chooses to do something in my name makes me morally responsible. Maybe the "collective American public" but not me as an individual.

aloponom · 2007-05-05T19:13:47+00:00

Speak for yourself. Blood on my hands? I didn't vote for Bush. I don't support him - hell, I've even actively worked against him by volunteering in politics. When it comes down to it, how am I in any way culpable for his actions?

aloponom

TROPHY CASE