Share This Page

The reality behind those curtains

| Saturday, Feb. 9, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

“Raise the minimum wage,” went the headline on one newspaper's editorial pages. It was followed by this secondary headline: “There's a growing consensus that we must make work more meaningful.” Never mind that tying pay to anything other than productivity, skill set or any other value as determined by the employer (not the government, mind you) renders that work meaning less. ...

• A variation of the line “No one needs an AR-15” was uttered or written more than a few times by pols and/or pundits this past week. Never mind that among hunters, sport shooters and other gun enthusiasts, this semiautomatic rifle is favored for its handling and accuracy. More than 3 million Americans own AR-15s. But there's a deeper ignorance, if not arrogance, in the “No one needs ...” statement, given that there's a fundamental, Supreme Court-affirmed constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It's like saying “No one needs a microphone or a pulpit or a soapbox or a printing press.” ...

• In the debate over the slippery slope that is presidential “authority” to order, without congressional notification or judicial review, the killing by drones of even American citizens who become “enemy combatants” abroad, the question is posited, “Where does it end?” As in will some president attempt to use this execution-by-drone power on American soil against anyone he tags as an “enemy”? It's a fair question and not merely an academic one. As is this question: No matter who puts drones in the air — be it the local gendarmes, state revenuers or the executive branch army of one — what happens when America's sons and daughters of liberty start shooting down those drones? ...

• In proposing his massive tax increase (that's supposedly, if not comically, not a tax increase) on the wholesale price of each gallon of gas, Republican Gov. Tom Corbett trotted out a pol 'plaint straight from boilerplate talking points usually associated with regressive, er, “progressive” Democrats. It's time for those nasty oil companies to pay their “fair share,” he said. This, from the same fella who's giving Shell a $1 billion tax break for its proposed Beaver County “cracker plant.” That said, if approved, Pennsylvania would have the highest gasoline tax in the nation. Which will be quite the incentive for businesses looking to open shop in the Keystone State, right? ...

• Oh, by the way, Big Oil's profit these days on a $35 tank of gas is about $2.17. Under the Corbett proposal, and combined with the federal gasoline tax, Big Government's profit on that $35 tank of gas will be just under $9. ...

• When the White House finally released a photo purportedly showing President Obama skeet shooting at Camp David (something he says he does all the time), it came with a prohibition against using the photo “in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the president, the first family or the White House.” Who paid for that photograph? Unless Mr. Obama personally paid for its taking and dissemination, taxpayers own that photo and should feel free to use the image any way they please.

Colin McNickle is Trib Total Media's director of editorial pages (412-320-7836 or cmcnickle@tribweb.com).

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.