Share This Page

The Thursday wrap

| Wednesday, Oct. 24, 2012, 8:56 p.m.

The Los Angeles Times, in endorsing President Barack Obama for re-election, says he has “brought a certain levelheadedness to the White House” and generally blames Republicans for his failures. On what planet? ... MSNBC's Chris Matthews says Mitt Romney supporters are fueled by racial hatred for Mr. Obama. No, Mr. Matthews, they simply think Obama has been a lousy president. ... The Federal Salary Council ciphers that federal employees earn 34 percent less than their private-sector counterparts and that the “pay gap” jumped 8 percentage points since last year. But two Junes ago, the private American Enterprise Institute concluded federal employees earn 14 percent more than their private counterparts. See what happens when you let government types study reality? ... The Washington Times reports that the U.S. Army has hired a public relations firm to “improve the image” of a $2.5 billion “intelligence analytical processor” used by troops in Afghanistan to identify the enemy and deadly buried explosives. It's the same processor that the troops say doesn't work very well. Same pig, new lipstick? ... Could “Hurricane snow” soon become a part of the weather lexicon? Forecasters are carefully watching what's expected to become Hurricane Sandy. One computer model has it moving up the East Coast (beginning in Norfolk, Va.) early next week with blasting rains. Another, more inland track could dump heavy wet snow over the Appalachian Mountains. It's beginning to look a lot like ... .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.