If you read enough comments you can eventually find a nutjob-stance on any issue. Reader comments are notorious for being poorly-written, ignorant diatribes. Reporting on them, frankly, is lazy journalism. Comments should be taken with a grain of salt -- except this one, of course.

My stance on this issue is represented perfectly by this article. That is all.

It's clear that it's too late to stop global warming, and that humanity is going to suffer greatly.

Right now I'm going to enjoy spewing carbon from my tire-burning V8, so that one day we can tell our children in the post-apocalypse how we really *lived* while we had the chance.

For now, take solace in the fact that we (Americans) live in areas that won't flood too much or desertify so easily.

Hopefully our decendants will forgive us -- or records of our sin will be destroyed. But either way, there's nothing we can do, so let's just enjoy ourselves.

There's too much stuff in this article that doesn't make sense. I think it is made-up.

Repeat the end, but change two words. See if you can spot 'em!

"What I do know is that many conservatives' objections to freeing slaves have as much to do with the problem of overreaching state power as they do with what some people might call the moral aspect of the question."

That's right, conservatives have the same stance here as the Confederates did 150 years ago. What is it with conservatives always expounding on states' rights -- except, of course, when they don't (see: medical marajuana).

It's neat to read TMW when it's not about Bush.

Note that this photo is dated in April 2008. The rioting pictured was not a result of economic collapse. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The caption describes it as the aftermath of a protest over high food prices -- which of course resulted from commodity price hikes in the previously *booming* economy.

I'm not disputing the article, but the image would tend to refute the article's thesis. That is, if there was violence due to a booming economy, the current malaise should relax food prices and *prevent* violence.

Point being, the photo is highly misleading.

The anonymous coward who wrote the 'Hurt Feelings Report' is the real pussy.

The only thing that should matter is that the energy source should cost the least when ALL costs (including environmental) are taken into account.

I notice that the gynocracy didn't ask the opinions of any men here. What, men can't be feminists? That's so sexist.

We should work toward a world that's free of sexism, where a boy can dream of one day being a columnist for women's issues. Your blatant discrimination is only a step backward for civil rights.

I only hope that one day we can all join hands against your narrow-mindedness.

I think this will pass, as a reaction grows via a few high-profile incidents of upskirters getting their asses kicked by pissed off victims/boyfriends/bystanders.

Also I expect awareness to grow and women to be encouraged to speak out, as with other forms of sexual assault. Eventually we will look back on this like we do with suicide hijacking -- an offense that can only be committed because people aren't prepared to recognize or confront it.

Did you coin that? Because I think it's a winner!

::clap::.

::clap::.

::clap::.

::clap::.

::clap::.

So the premise is that the price of corn follows the price of oil because it is seen as an oil substitute with regard to biofuels. I don't know that I agree with that view, but that the crash in oil prices has caused a crash in corn prices does not negate this hypothesis. Rather it lends credence to it, demonstrating the connection between the two.

After all, if oil demand has changed but food demand has not changed, and prices for both commodities have dipped, then it must have been only oil demand that had the effect on corn prices. There may be other explanations for the corn crash, but given the data in the article, this seems the only rational conclusion.

It isn't clear from the article why Palin is such an affront to Jews.

Some Jews are cited claiming to have heard she is an anti-Semite. This is the first I've heard. Wexler supposes her pro-life, anti-stem cell research stance will turn off voters, but is this any different from McCain's views?

This article claims that Palin may have turned the tide in Democrats' favor, but it doesn't say why. It feels like this entire article has a basis that goes unexplicated, and it was the one question I really wanted answered when I began reading it.

But I guess it's worked -- you got me to click on it.

Really, though. I notice half the time the posts are pertinent and interesting, and half the time it's second wave Feminism (e.g., looking for reasons to be offended by men).

Here's an idea. Don't like Chikipedia? Create a Cockipedia of your favorite penises. Go ahead, objectify us -- everyone (including women!) likes to be objectified sometimes.

Of course, I'm sure you'd say a Cockipedia just plays into the male fantasy of penis worship. Well, then doesn't Chickipedia play into the female fantasy of beauty worship? Oh wait, I forgot rule #1 of Feminism: men are always bad and wrong. Rule #2: should a man present a reasonable argument, see rule #1.

Ack, now this post is all kvetching. But I suppose it's got good company. In any case, Broadsheet, thanks fo giving me space to rant! You guys are fun (I'm being so sincere right now).

This comparison is right on. To all the commenters above who are too cool to actually like a candidate: It's a comparison. Calm down.

I detect hints of jealousy. And no, I'm not trolling.

It looks like a fake ad meant to look like a McCain ad. Is there independent verification that McCain people actually put this out?

The headline says it all.