The Thursday wrap
Reports of President Obama's expected nomination of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to succeed Hillary Clinton as secretary of State are generating plenty of enthusiasm from the usual global-warming climate cluckers. International energy consultant David Goldwyn says Mr. Kerry “would not only put climate change in the top five issues he raises with every country, but he would probably rethink our entire diplomatic approach to the issue.” So, as Iran advances its nuke know-how and North Korea refines its missile technology, Mr. Kerry, as State's chief, would make hot air (besides his own) a U.S. priority. Swell. ... There's also some chatter in the blogosphere that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, fresh from the Benghazi Consulate meltdown, was merely “floated” — kind of a bait and switch — as a potential secretary of State contender to take the heat off an eventual Kerry nomination. Between the two, that's a distinction without any difference. ... And there will always be doomsayers predicting the world's end, now supposedly on Friday, according to a Mayan prophesy. In the U.S., the Chicken Littles (or global-warming acolytes, for that matter) simply shrug off their wrong assertions and go on to predict the next apocalypse. In China, those predicting Armageddon get locked up — about 500 of them recently, according to The Associated Press. Yet some enlightened minds truly believe that this is a culture worthy of U.S. emulation.
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 â 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.