Share This Page

The Thursday wrap

| Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2012, 8:59 p.m.

More than a few astute thinkers of the Fourth Estate are reminding that gun control-advocating sportscaster/commentator Bob Costas benefits from well-armed NFL security folks. ... There will be no fewer than 35 post-season college football bowl games this year, most of which nobody cares about and are staged to serve as cash cows for colleges and universities with decidedly mediocre records. To wit, 10 bowl-bound teams have impressive (ahem) records of 6-6 (including Pitt) and one, Georgia Tech, even has a losing record of 6-7. Bowl games should be for the best of the best, not a mess of the rest. ... University of Maryland economics professor Peter Morici pines for a less costly European health care model (think of the Germans and the Dutch) because they “more aggressively regulate prices, better ration care and spend less on lawsuits.” Or perhaps put another way, the price caps create service scarcity that kills people and leaves survivors with no recourse. Other than that, it's a great idea, Professor. ... Here's another not-so-great idea, courtesy of The Philadelphia Inquirer editorialists: They're urging New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to raise the Garden State's minimum wage to $8.50, with automatic cost-of-living increases. The Inquirer “argues” (and we use the term loosely) that the government diktat would “help New Jersey's working poor.” By reducing the number of entry-level jobs? A similar proposal in neighboring New York is projected to kill 22,000 jobs. Are these “progressives” brilliant or what?!

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.