Reason Morning Links: Congress' Ethics Panel Can't Find Any Wrongdoing, Stimulus Funds Not Creating Jobs, Bloomberg Declares War on Salt

|

NEXT: Recently at Reason.tv: Real World DC (Health Care Remix)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. By my recollection, Gumby never rode Pokey, though he could have.
    That’s respect.

    1. “It is uncivilised to ride animals. Are we not animals ourselves?”

      1. I carry Mr. Bigglesworth…

        And it’s frickin’ freezing in here.

    2. Gumby’s creator dies at 88.

      Who to believe? His home town paper (died at 89) or the New York Times?

      1. 88 I can believe. 89? That’s a bit of a stretch.

      2. He was probably 88 the last time NYT updated their pre-written obituary.

  2. I will do what Bloomberg demands and eliminate all salt from my diet. Not so much as a gram. It’s been nice knowing all of you. 🙂

    I’m about 1/3 the way through html fixes on my epic CRA takedown. Should be done tonite or tomorrow night. Tremble in fear Chony, tremble in fear…..

    1. The Community Reinvestment Act, Evaluated, by Jonathan Livingston Longtorso.

      Kneel before me and worship me as a living god.

  3. Don’t you understand that action against Congressional ethics violators might cause the Democratic Party to lose their majority and that having the Democratic Party in the majority is the highest of ethical goals. After all they are the party of hope and change. So by this logic no Congressional Democrat can be sanctioned for ethics violation since it would be unethical.

    1. They’re doing God’s work.

      1. In some of the most blighted communities in America. God bless ’em!

  4. “The plan is voluntary for food companies and involves no legislation. It allows companies to cut salt gradually over five years so the change is not so noticeable to consumers.”

    I wonder how long voluntary part is going to last.

    1. Change not noticeable? Shit. Try it with V8 or tomato juice. Get the real version and the low-sodium version. If you can’t tell the difference you have no taste buds.

  5. Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said lawmakers are held to the “highest ethical standard”

    America, if I told you that you had the “highest ethical standard” would you hold it against me?

  6. “We will show that prohibiting gays from marrying has no redeeming social benefit, that permitting gay marriage does not in any way undermine heterosexual marriage”

    Wow, pretty soon I’ll be able to marry Roxxxy!

  7. I eagerly await Todd Palin’s campaign against peppa.

  8. “The plan is voluntary for food companies and involves no legislation.”

    Someone needs to attend the Harry Reid School of That’s Not Really What ‘Voluntary’ Means.

  9. The House and Senate Ethics committees wouldn’t know ethics if someone handed it to them in an envelope.

    1. No more calls, please, we have a thread winner!

    2. “The House and Senate Ethics committees wouldn’t know ethics if someone handed it to them in an envelope.”

      And kept in a freezer?

  10. Speaking of doing God’s work, here’s your long overdue dose of Palin.

    1. All the christian church going folk I’ve ever know attributes everything to God’s plan.

      Having said the, Does Palin accept the notion that that Obama and Obiden won becuase it’s God’s plan?

      1. He was testing us TrickVic.

        Don’t you know how this game is played?

    2. I don’t believe one stinking word from someone who uses “nonplussed” to mean calm.(From the link)

      1. It’s an egregious use of the language.

  11. It will be voluntary until voluntary is shown not to work, hence the implied threat of legislation to encourage the targets to ‘volunteer’.

  12. Nearly three years after Congress approved sweeping ethics rules to “drain the swamp,” as incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, no member of Congress has been punished for wrongdoing.

    But if not for wetland protection regulations…

    1. If she drained the swamp, she would have to find a new place to live.

  13. Chavez orders currency devaluation by 50% in Venezuela…

    Will Seize Businesses That Raise Prices…

    National Guard to enforce…

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN096521320100109

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/…..tr11jqdrdM

    1. In a fetal position on his bathroom floor?

      1. Chavez is doing God’s work. The god in question being Cthulhu. Feel your sanity slipping away?

        1. What?

          I was commenting on where joe is?

          1. Did joe ever support Chavez? Iirc his position was that while Chavez was a thug Venezula’s democratic institutions still had life in them and they could keep Chavez somewhat in check. I realize that’s a bit of nuance lost on those who think that because someone doesn’t throw a book at Chavez during a two minute hate that person must be a Chavez supporter, but it’s a bit different…

            1. Venezula’s democratic institutions still had life in them and they could keep Chavez somewhat in check

              Well, are they?

              1. joe’s point at the time, again iirc, was made when Hugo lost his referendum. His point wasn’t that Hugo was “cool” or that joe approved of what he was doing or that Hugo was a powerless eunuch, but that his rule did not amount to totalitarianism and we should not rule out Venezula’s democratic institutions in this game. More specifically he seemed to argue we should think this way to lessen the beating of war-drums on the right on this topic.

                Totalitarian dictators don’t lose a lot of referendums…

                1. joe refused to acknowledge that Venezuela was no longer democratic.

                  1. THIS

              2. I’m not sure Chavez just did anything that the head of our Fed could not do with a stroke of a pen.

                1. Bernanke has the power to seize businesses that raise prices? Since when?

                  1. I thought we were talking about devaluing the currency? I didn’t read the column for what it’s worth.

                2. That says more about the US than it does Venezuela.

                3. And you’re okay with that?

            2. Exactly. joe’s position was, Chavez was a democratically elected thug, so it’s cool.
              Very nuanced.

              1. Really? It seemed more like what I said above to me. As that’s different than what you just said i’m not sure which one your “exactly” refers to…

                1. I use “exactly” exclusively as an indicator of sarcasm.

                2. Why don’t you go find some citations, asswipe?

            3. You know what word I’m uncomfortable with?

            4. joe’s take, as I recall, was that Chavez was democratically elected (pay no attention to the crushing of dissent and opposition), and that he was thus the legitimate ruler of Venezuela.

              joe also like to play up the fact that Chavez lost an referendum as proof positive that he wasn’t a totalitarian (pay no attention to the fact that Chavez went right ahead and did just about everything in the defeated referendum).

              Now, having said that Chavez is the legitimate and non-totalitarian leader of Venezuela, you have pretty much written off all the most serious criticisms that one can make about Chavez.

              Classic form-and-process over substance liberalism.

              1. joe|11.6.07 @ 3:12PM|#
                I guess I can address the previous comment to John, too.

                Being democratically elected doesn’t make Chavez good. That’s not why we should trust democracy.

                Right now, I’m trusting democracy to get rid of him, because he’s not a good president.

                I’m talking about democracy, the system, John. All of this good guy-bad guy stuff is coming from you. I think we need to support the democratic system even when it puts a bad guy in office. As long as the people can participate in free and fair elections, he won’t stay there too long.

                Once upon a time, you used to claim that spreading democracy was something that was important to you. If it actually is, you’re going to have to gain a better understanding of the difference between the terms “democratically elected” and “a good guy.”

                1. Joe, in several of the comments, explains his position on Chavez here .

              2. RC
                You don’t have to think Chavez is the illegitimate ruler or that he is a totalitarian to think he is an evil autocratic thug. WTF?

                I mean, is Obama illegitimate and/or totalitarian? I don’t think so, but even I can criticize him while admitting that…

                1. Illegitimate…no
                  Totalitarian…thats a different matter.

                  1. Hyperbole alert,, hyperbole alert!

                    1. What hyperbole? What part of the economy isnt Obama messing with? Its seems in totality to me.

                    2. robc
                      This is pathetic.
                      Open up your phone book and find the number for the local GOP (opposition party automatically on the ballot in every state and representing/controlling large parts of the nation) or the local newspaper (which I bet is not closed down every time it prints something unfavorable about Obama). Walk around at your local mall, are those stores nationalized? When you go to work today, did the government assign you to that job? Can you quit if you want?

                      I mean, this could go on and on. The US is about as far from “totalitarian” as you can get in the modern world, and it is light-years away even in theory…

                      You’re often a smart guy, but this is retarded hyperbole at best fella.

                    3. Those arent happening in Venezuela either, doesnt mean Chavez isnt a totalitarian.

                      BTW, speaking of nationalization, I drive a nationalized care (I know, GM isnt technically nationalized, but close enough – we spread are socialization with market pharasings). Banks are nationalized. Insurance companies are too. More fascist style government-business partnerships than true nationalization, but same thing basically.

                      And the GOP? The other branch of the socialist party?

            5. At some point, being democratically elected does not mean, ipso facto, that you are the legitimate ruler. Legitimacy has something to do with not violating people’s rights, yes, MNG?

              And in what way is Chavez not a totalitarian? What aspect of Venezuelan life is beyond his control, exactly?

  14. WHFIJ,

    I love the use of the term ‘speculators’ in the article to describe any businessman who reacts to the currency devaluation.

  15. Letter of qualified admonition? “If you did it–and we’re not saying that you did–you shouldn’t do it too many more times where people can see you. If you do, we may have to consider drafting a letter of disappointment.”

  16. I see that the Harry Reid gaffe about Obama is growing some legs. It will be interesting to watch. IMO, if a republican had said the same thing, it would be a shitstorm in the press.

    1. yeah look what happened to trent lott

    2. ” if a republican had said the same thing, it would be a shitstorm in the press.”

      I googled “Harry Reid comments” and got “2,322 for harry reid comments”

      What’s the magic number for “shitstorm” status?

        1. Like cases should be treated alike robc, for discussion of whether Reid’s comments are like Lott’s, see below…

  17. Harry Reid has a “macaca moment”, probably eliminating whatever slim he had of getting reelected in November regardless.

    1. Top Democrats tell POLITICO that they I have no doubt that that Reid, a former amateur boxer, will keep fighting and survive in his leadership job become a former senator.

      FTFY.

    2. In other words “its OK because we’re liberals”, the real racism is disagreeing with us.

    3. Meh, I think there’s a difference. Allen’s Macaca moment seemed to reveal an underlying contempt for people with “furin” names, while Reid’s comments seem to speak about his belief about a political reality (albeit an ugly one). In other words Allen’smacaca” or something” while Reid’s If anything Reid’s comments are critical of American’s racial positions.

      Of course that will probably hurt him. He’s a bit of a ninny anyways and would likely lose without this flap.

      1. It’s really fascinating to watch the left contort itself into a mobius loop so to avoid applying the same standard to itself that it does to everyone else.

        Please. Do go on.

        1. Do I need to explain it again JW? I thought part of the advantage of written word over spoken was the other guy can re-read if he doesn’t get it…

          I’m no big fan of Reid, but neither is George Will, and I agree with him when he said “I don’t think there’s a scintilla of racism in what Harry Reid said. At long last, Harry Reid has said something that no one can disagree with, and he gets in trouble for it.”

          1. See my post below.

            Goose and gander.

      2. And just for a little context:

        “It seems to be that we can forgive a 100-year-old senator for some of the indiscretion of his youth, but, what is more difficult to forgive is the current president of the U.S. Senate (Lott) suggesting we had been better off if we had followed a segregationist path in this country after all of the battles and fights for civil rights and all the work that we still have to do,” said Obama.

        He added: “The Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party.”

        We can also forgive Obama for not knowing the Constitutional hierarchy of the Senate too, I suppose. Petty details, for a sitting Senator to know the basics of the Constitution.

        1. Trent Lott said it would have been good if Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond, whose candidacy was based fundamentally on opposition to civil rights, had won. That’s worlds apart from saying that white America would be more ready to elect a light skinned black man without a “Negro dialect.”

          1. Really? An off the cuff remark at a fucking *birthday party* to wish a geezer well is racist, but referring to the president as a negro isn’t?

            You may want to tuck the leg behind the ear a bit more.

            1. If you need your memory refreshing here is Lott’s quote: “Lott said: “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”

              He wished the segregationist candidate had won so that we wouldn’t have had “all these problems over the years.”

              Reid said Americans were ready to vote for a light skinned African-American who lacked a Negro dialect.

              What was racist in Reid’s comment? That white people would more readily vote for a light skinned black or one who lacked a Negro dialect? Was the use of the term “Negro dialect” supposed to tbe the racist part?

              I can point out what was racist about Lott’s comments if you’d like: wishing the explicitly segregationist candidate had won to take care of “these problems” (considering Thurmond’s platform it’s not hard to infer what these would be).

              1. Oh I see, you think “Negro” is racist.

                Well look at this racist bunch here:

                http://www.uncf.org/

                1. Hey MNG. Head into the heart of Balmer today and use that term with the first medium-sized group of black urban youth you come across. Let us know how that goes.

                2. “Oh I see, you think “Negro” is racist.”

                  So does Obama. Why else would he 100% accept Reid’s apology? You don’t accept an apology if you haven’t been wronged.

              2. He wished the segregationist candidate had won so that we wouldn’t have had “all these problems over the years.”

                What high pitched sound?

                This isn’t a question of what is racist or isn’t, but a matter if being honest and consistent, something demagogues traditionally have a problem with.

                I’d go as far to agree with Will as well, but that’s not the issue. Either a racially insensitive comment is grounds to not lead the Senate or isn’t. You let me know what it should be.

                1. If you agree with Will and me then there was no racially insensitive comment.

                  1. There’s a difference between racist and racially insensitive. Alas, this wouldn’t be the first time a white person was roasted on the cross for making a racially insensitive comment and being loudly and repeatedly denounced as a racist by the self-appointed black leadership. Well, a non-Democrat white person, that is.

                    Oh, and work “negro” into a conversation at work today with African-Americans co-workers. I’m sure you’ll all look back and laugh at it one day.

            2. I am pretty sure the president is a Negro. How is it racist to point that out? “Negro” is not racist, just dated.

          2. Blago ups the Democratic racial sensitivity ante: “I’m blacker than Barack Obama…I shined shoes.”

            http://www.politico.com/blogs/…..ml?showall

            1. He’s completely off the rails with the joe/Chavez/democracy thing, but MNG’s take on this seems right.

              1. I agree, but I think the same of Lott’s comment, so MNG is wrong. If MNG would admit that Lott’s comment is exactly equivalent to the Reid one and should be treated the same way (but not the way Lott was treated) then okay.

                1. ” If MNG would admit that Lott’s comment is exactly equivalent to the Reid one and should be treated the same way (but not the way Lott was treated) then okay.”

                  I would admit that if they were, but they are not. See above.

                  1. You are wrong above. Lott was technically correct in his statement, we would have been better off with President Strom.

                    1. Both Lott and Reid said something that was technically correct but that they should have known better than to say.

                    2. “we would have been better off with President Strom.”

                      If by “we” you mean “white people who don’t want to mix with blacks” then you might be correct.

                    3. No, I think he would have been a better president than Truman, that is what I mean. Probably wouldnt have got us into the never-ending Korean conflict.

                    4. Yeah robc, because Thurmond’s 1948 candidacy was based on his libertarian foriegn policy!

                      You do know that Thurmond ran because he and some other Southern pols were furious at the anti-segregation stances the Dems were beginning to take, right? And we’re not talking 1965 Civil Rights Act we’re talking anti-lynching laws, de-segregating the military and public schools and ending Jim Crow laws.

                    5. Im not talking about what he ran on, Im talking about what he would have done as President. Just guessing here. I do know that Presidents cant pass legislation.

                    6. I don’t know robc, but for me the ending of Jim Crow, which Thurmond left his longtime party and began his independent candidacy of which we are speaking of to oppose, was a positive for freedom. Thurmond’s main focus in running was to oppose that, conjectural foriegn policy he may have tried to make doesn’t make up for his clearly stated and acted upon passionate and determined focus on upholding Jim Crow.

                    7. Ending Jim Crow – positive.
                      Replacing it with anti-freedom regulations in the other direction (requiring PRIVATE [fuck public accomodation – there is no such thing] businesses to not descriminate) is just as bad.

                    8. Jim Crow would have ended anyway. But if we could have done it without the anti-liberty laws in the opposite direction, it would have been better. And a Strom presidency might have led that way.

                    9. Not to thread jack, but I saw in a paper today that North Korea is reaching out for an offical end to the Korean War.

                    10. The question is, would Stom have dropped the A-bomb?

                  2. Lott said that he voted for Thurmond, who based his campaign on opposition to civil rights in virulent terms, that he was proud of it to this day, and that if the rest of the country had done the same “we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years.”

                    That’s pretty bad. Reid’s comments, on the other hand, seem to at worst say something critical about America’s willingness to accept certain types of black folks over others.

                    Not even close.

                    1. “Lott said that he voted for Thurmond”

                      Let me get this straight. It’s wrong to public announce who one voted for in a presidential election?

                    2. ad “ly” as needed.

                    3. Yeah Gobbler, that was what people were mad about, that he said who he voted for.

                      Retarded much?

                    4. So, robc, would we have been better off if George Wallace had won in 1968 instead of Nixon?

                    5. Probably. Would have been even better off if Hospers had won.

                    6. Hospers was 1972. Oops.

                    7. Umm, Trent Lott was born in 1941. I’m pretty sure seven-year olds weren’t eligible to vote in 1948.

                      Snark aside, though, I think you’re correct that Reid’s faux pas is far less egregious than Lott’s.

                      Reid used outdated and by some standards insensitive language to make a generally factually true statement. Lot essentially said he believed it would be better if Jim Crow was still the law of the land or, at least, a good portion of it.

                      As for “negro” it was still the respectable and most common term used for referring to blacks until at least 1970. For example Martin Luther King always used it in his speeches.

                      The influence of unrepentant Dixiecrat converts in the GOP is regularly overstated but the likes of Trent Lott does provide advocates for that position with a shit-ton of evidence for their case.

                    8. I agree with this comment from Isaac Bartram. I don’t think Reid’s comment was a big deal at all. Hell, I can barely muster any outrage for Lott’s comment.

                    9. Blagojevich is pretty much just a turd, though.

                    10. Actually, Lott just said he thought Strom would have been a better president. I doubt that he had the segregationist platform in mind at all. He just said he thought Strom was a helluva swell guy.

                      Which is perfectly appropriate for a birthday party for a 100 year old politician who once ran for President.

                      The only way you can get hard-core racism out of this is by reading between the lines and inferring hard like a motherfucker.

                    11. Yep, especially considering, as pointed out above, that Lott was 7 at the time, so probably didnt follow the issues in detail.

                    12. The only way you can get hard-core racism out of this is by reading between the lines and inferring hard like a motherfucker.

                      Nah. Just listen for the whistle.

                    13. MNG needs to shut his ‘negro dialect’ mouth.

                    14. Bah. I find MNG to be a valuable part of the commenting community here. It is good to have some differing voices who will engage in real discussion.

                    15. I find MNG to be a valuable part of the commenting community here. It is good to have some differing voices who will engage in real discussion.

                      +1

      3. So what’s the political reality? That these people can’t get elected?

        You mean when Obama turned on the ghetto talking to union workers or in rallies with more blacks he was hurt when the speech nationally televised?

        I hate to ask for a cite since it’s usually a bullshit way to discuss something. But what do you have to back up your “political reality?” I’d be interested in how this has been studied. If it has.

        1. hmmm
          I’m not saying Reid was correct about the political reality, just that that was what his comments were about.

        2. BTW hmmm, as far as biad based on skin tone, it’s a not uncommonly discussed or held thing. Here’s an article I found in like 3 seconds.

          http://www.rcgd.isr.umich.edu/…..tbrown.pdf

          Strangely in many cultures lighter skin tone, apart from just white/black differences, is associated with more positive qualities than darker skin tones.

          Whether, how and where this holds, especially in regards to today’s American I can’t say. But it’s not like saying the moon is made of cheese…

          1. What Harry Reid said wasn’t incorrect. Obama certainly stood a better chance in any election than say, Mos Def. The fact that Reid was too stupid to realize saying it was a bad thing is a whole different story.

          2. “Strangely in many cultures lighter skin tone, apart from just white/black differences, is associated with more positive qualities than darker skin tones.”

            Like the Antibellum South, for instance?

        3. So what’s the political reality? That these people can’t get elected?

          No, it’s that “you people” can’t get elected.

        4. hmm, “these people”, as you say, were elected in local congressional districts. Many congressmen have accents and use vernacular that strays significantly from standard American English. Such people whether they have African-American dialects or one of the many regional white American dialects have no problem appealling to people “like them”.

          I don’t think that it’s a stretch to say that someone with a strong African American dialect is unlikely to gain the kind of universal national following to get elected President. I seem to recall that there were even questions about the electability of LBJ, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

          And the same goes for the Senate or Governorship. Winning local constests is completely different from winning statewide. You are just not going to hear black Senators or Governors giving speeches to general audiences in ebonics.

          1. I don’t think that it’s a stretch to say that someone with a strong African American dialect is unlikely to gain the kind of universal national following to get elected President.

            “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” Biden said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

            http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/31/biden.obama/

            It’s not what you say, but how you say it.

      4. I think the beating Lott is getting is more-or-less justified. He is a member of the party of holier-than-thou on racism. You get up on that high horse, expect people to drag you off any chance they get.

        1. You mean Reid and not Lott, correct?

      5. Reid’s comments are critical of what he thinks American’s racial positions are. It show the depth of contempt the man has for his fellow citizens.

  18. In a totally unrelated story:

    http://www.nj.com/news/index.s…..eills.html

      1. FTA: “Sex only goes so far ? then you want to be able to talk to the person,” Hines said.

        Or, for married people…

        Talking only goes so far, then you want to be able to have sex with the person.

        1. Just STFU and blow me, damn it!

        1. why did they make it look like one the guys from Spinal Tap?

          1. citation;

            http://www.hearya.com/wp-conte…..al-tap.jpg

    1. Which woman in this pic is sexier?

      http://www.tgdaily.com/busines…..n-sin-city

  19. After watching a fantastically disgusting display of “collegiality” between Judd Gregg and Chris Dodd this morning, the truly surprising thing is that there even *is* an ethics committee.

    “My esteemed colleague” indeed.

    1. between Judd Gregg and Chris Dodd

      What an over-abundance of consonants.

  20. There should be a TV show called Is it Racist?

    1. The proper mix of members on the judge’s panel would be the true key to the show’s success.

      1. Michael Richards and Al Sharpton. I’d watch.

        1. Yes, you’d think you’d need some real racists on the panel; otherwise, how can you know it’s good racism? I like the idea of some real racists sharing the panel with some people who see racism in everything, everywhere.

          1. Where do you find good Asian racists/victims?

            1. China/Korea.

            2. Any place you can find Asians.

              Call a Puerto Rican a Dominican and see if they don’t take offense. Call either a Mexican.

              America is not that racists anymore compared to many other nations.

              1. Dude, I’d watch the hell out of that show. You’d have to get the guys from ego trip involved somehow.

                1. The only problem is that the show needs a “good cop”–i.e., someone with the credibility to actually call something racist that is racist. Who would that be?

                  1. Me. When they say “if only the right people were in charge,” it’s me they want. Same concept.

              2. Try going to anywhere in souther Europe and ask a random person what they think of Gypsies.

                1. Or, listen when a Frenchman tells you what he really thinks of Les Beurs.

            3. Hey, you only need a panel of one: Janeane Garofalo.

              1. Who would that be?

                Tavis Smiley?

                1. James Earl Jones?

                  1. Who would that be?

                    Whoopi Goldberg of course.

                    1. But then no one would be called a rapist.

                      Oh, the show’s about racists, right.

                    2. This is the best comment thread EVER.

  21. And nothing about Dear Leader’s two-tier valuation of the bolivar?
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34775185/

  22. Yo Squirrels,
    How about, when we reply to a comment, there is a little “Replying to: X” line on top like The Atlantic’s blogs have? It gets a little hard following threaded conversation when we pass your arbitrarily small indentation limit.

    1. Or, better yet, get rid of threads and people will quote the respondent like they used to do.

      1. How about you scrap the whole comment section and we’ll express our opinion on Reason articles by scratching them into cave walls with berry juice.

        1. Ha ha ha ha, awesome, BSJ.

        2. Or, perhaps, with the blood of our enemies who like threaded comments?

          1. I’m hip, but only if we kill them with sharpened, fire-hardened sticks. If we’re gonna go all Lord of the Flies on each other over threaded comments, let’s do it right.

        3. If there was a webcam pointed at the wall, and a remote scratching tool I could work from my computer, that would be fine. And better than threaded comments.

  23. There’s a racist under my bed!

  24. Threaded comments are racist.

  25. That’s for damned sure.

  26. Sounds to me like someone has a bit too much spare time on their hands!

    RT
    http://www.anonymity-tools.ru.tc

    1. We all got pwned by anonymity bot. :::shuffles away to corner to pout:::

    2. How dare you imply that black people have a lot of free time because they’re unemployed, you racist!

  27. Threaded comments are only good for casual readers who only read thru the comments once and never return.

    And when we dont go over the arbitrary depth level.

    Any other time they suck. Anyone who tries to actually be a part of the community and respond (you know, the people that give the casual readers something to read here) cant fucking find what has changed since the last time they were on a thread.

    If we had accounts, then threading can be done (see beeradvocate.com). Comments are marked “new” becuase there is a database keeping track of what comments you have seen. However, accounts suck (most sites they are necessary, but reason hasnt reached that point yet).

    So, we either need accounts+threads or no threads. The fact that the decision makers went with the combo of choices that FAILS says wonders.

    1. Threaded comments are only good for casual readers who only read thru the comments once and never return.

      Unthreaded comments are only good for dog-raping Mongolians who are quitting fermented mare’s milk cold turkey.

      1. Guilty as charged.

      2. It’s not rape if the dog consents.

        1. The bitch wasn’t unwilling.

          1. The bitch wasn’t unwilling unresponsive.

            1. Thanks, right after I hit submit i started thinkin that I cocked it up. Thanks again.

          2. The bitch wasn’t unwilling unresponsive. FIFY

            1. Oh wow, I should really hit “refresh” more often.

              1. Don’t express remorse for your little screwup, just blame it on threaded comments. That’s what all the cool kids are doing.

        2. She was only two (that’s 14 in dog years) but Angelica Huston’s Irish Setter says she looks like a 5 year old, so the fact that I orally, vaginally, and anally raped her while she barked is irrelevant or some Hollywood bullshit.

  28. Good morning reason!

    Article/pic of John T and myself! Yay!

    Clicky

  29. That explains a lot.

  30. Unthreaded comments are only good for dog-raping Mongolians who are quitting fermented mare’s milk cold turkey.

    RAAAAACIIIIIIST!

    1. Oh no. It’s those god-damn Mongorian again! Stop! Stop right there, Mongorians! God-damnit, stop! Stop breaking down my shitty wrall, you stupid Mongorians!

  31. Bergholt Stuttley Johnson cold has a peter in his mouth for liking threaded comments. Fuck threaded comments, yo.

    1. Poor Xeones. If only your whining had more weight with the site administrators than the support of the majority of the commenters here…

      1. Show me comments in favors of threaded comments. Just because we use them doesn’t mean we like them. Threaded comments suck.

        1. What you do carries much more weight than what you say. Nothing is keeping you from keeping your comments strictly sequential and quoting for context (as Xeones always does, to his credit). Anyway, the staff put this up to the vote and the pro-threading side won.

          1. We pay our taxes so they must not be too high, right?

            1. Oh, I am sorry, I forgot that Gillespie and Welch can arrest you and throw you in jail for commenting sequentially. Weren’t they after Wesley Snipes for that?

          2. The problem is they didnt weigh votes.

            1. It wasnt “the majority of commenters”, it was the non-commenting readers who were the majority.

      2. I bottom respond on emails. However, if Im responding to an email thread that is all top-response, I top-respond in order to avoid mixing things up. Same here, Ive started using threading to avoid splitting threads.

        1. if Im responding to an email thread that is all top-response, I top-respond in order to avoid mixing things up

          Ok, now I have lost all respect for you.

          1. Dog-raping okay, but top posting is right out?

            Actually, I think I agree with your priority order there.

  32. Meanwhile, at the Detroit Auto Show:

    U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood defended the government’s more than $80 billion bailout of the domestic auto industry today.

    During a 15-minute appearance at the opening of the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, LaHood rejected criticism of the government’s role. He noted that Obama’s support of auto makers was unprecedented and General Motors Co. has paid the first $1 billion of its $6.7 billion in outstanding U.S. government loans. The government swapped about $42 billion for a 61 percent majority equity stake in GM.

    “This was a good investment of taxpayer dollars in an industry that needed a little bit of infusion of resources,” LaHood said.

    Shut the fuck up, Ray.

    1. Anybody who is financially literate knows what a screwing we took on that deal.

  33. Bergholt Stuttley Johnson

    You can’t trust a man whose name has that many syllables.

    1. You should trust a person who uses initials to hide their true syllable count even less. Wtf does the “P” stand for, eh? I bet its Pilluvalakandi.

  34. Could threaded comments, in theory, be defensible? Surely. Are they defensible as employed on Hit & Run? Hell no.

    And my kumiss addiction has nothing to do with it.

    1. Sure, it needs tweaking, but its definitely an improvement on the old sequential system.

      1. No it isn’t.

      2. See my post with the real problems with threaded comments. Seriously, what benefit do they provide. As I said, its only to once thru readers, who should have very little say.

        In fact, though, they made the decision. Supposedly the “silent majority” favors threads. Will clearly those fuckers dont try to follow threads that they read 6 hours earlier.

  35. If only your whining had more weight with the site administrators than the support of the majority of the commenters here…

    Since when do libertarians give a fuck about democracy? If the majority of people like a thing that sucks, well, it still sucks.

  36. Yaphet Koto/Shannon Sharpe 2012!

    1. Alien Yaphet Kotto or Live and Let Die Yaphet Kotto?

      1. Oh, Live and Let Die Kotto, no contest.

      2. Oh, Live and Let Die Kotto, no contest.

      3. Homicide Yaphet Kotto. He’s, at least, Italian there.

        1. Nah, he’s like totally tough in the Bond flick. And he’s got the 7-Up guy and young Jane Seymour.

        2. When you consider Homicide Kotto versus Live and Let Die Kotto, you get a contrast in executive styles. The former is a competent and sympathetic bureaucrat while the other is charisma defined. It would go against all of American tradition to pick competence over charisma.

      4. Did Yaphet ever utter the line “Names is for tombstones, baby!” on Homicide? I didn’t think so.

        Case closed.

        1. He was great in that movie. He even died great.

        2. For my money, the most powerful scenes in cinematic history:

          #1 End of second season, and last scene of the finale of Homicide, Crosetti and Giardello on a bench, if I recall, discussing their Italian heritage.

          #2 Opie tells Andy that he let the poor kid have his after school job.

          #3 Archie and Michael are locked in a meat storage. Michael rags on his racist father. Archie chews him out for having no gratitude for the man who put him through college.

          1. Dude, the man exploded from having a compressed air cartridge shoved in his mouth.

            1. When you contrast that scene I pointed out with one that occurs early in the next season where Giardello expresses his contempt for Crosetti for his suicide by talking about the Roman tradition of burying suicides in the middle of the street because they were only worthy of walking over, well you have an implosion quite a bit more impressive than the explosion in Live or Let Die. Though I really love that movie, and that scene.

              1. Dude, the man exploded from having a compressed air cartridge shoved in his mouth.

          2. Guess you never saw Pootie Tang.

  37. There is only one point in favor of threaded comments on Hit’n’Run, and that’s highnumber’s revisitation of the Santorum thread. And it’s been done already.

  38. Oh goody. It’s stupid comments about Obama day!

  39. Which also illustrates our new-found ability to comment on any thread in perpetuity. So you can spend a few years thinking up a response to someone who annoys you.

    Threaded comments also allow us the ability to preempt or disfigure some comments through a temporal illusion.

  40. If Bloomberg hates salt so much, he can stop eating it. Preferably until he dies.

    Does Bloomberg even know how sodium chloride functions in the human body? How necessary it is to sustain life? The actual mechanism by which sodium is bad for people with high blood pressure and congestive heart failure, but not people who don’t have those ailments?

    Wait, of course he doesn’t. He’s just an asshole.

    Well, my salt, cold dead fingers, etc.

    1. I don’t think he is trying to ban all salt in food. Most people do probably eat more salt than necessary (I definitely do, I love salt). But fuck that salt loving hypocrite and anyone who wants to legislate about what kind of food I can buy or sell. It is not as if there are no low sodium products available. If people want less salt, they can get food with less salt.

  41. NACL, he’s not just an asshole, but an enormous hypocrite.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2…..tured.html

    1. Well, it’s probably good he doesn’t have a tortured relationship with sex. One can only imagine how that would play out in his coercive legislation.

      (Now I’m wondering if Spitzer was just sublimating with Wall Street.)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.