Share This Page

Sunday pops

| Saturday, Jan. 19, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

The latest example of your federal government in action — a $222,000 renovation of the private bathroom of the U.S. secretary of the Interior. As reminds Atlanta's WSB-TV, which first reported the story, “that's more expensive than many homes.” The feds blame water leaks for the high cost of the project, done in 2007. Guess that's why the renovated loo also includes a $3,500 Sub-Zero fridge? Heck, we know plenty of contractors who would have done the job for, say, $150,000. ... The Obama administration wasted no time in calling last week's terrorist attack on a British Petroleum gas field in Algeria “a terrorist attack.” That's encouraging considering its nomenclature game playing in last September's Benghazi tragedy. So why did so many in the media insist and persist in calling it an attack by “militants” or “extremists”? To be clear, the attack was the work of dirty rotten smelly terrorists under the auspices of the even dirtier, more rotten and stinkier al-Qaida. Truth in reportage requires vermin to be called “vermin.” Of course, this is a lot to ask from the same crowd that regularly uses the phrase “assault weapons” and has no idea what it means. (Hel-LOW, Toledo, Ohio, Block Bugler.) ... The New York Times has closed its environmental desk. The newspaper has reassigned environmental editors and reporters to other sections. Guess the greatest threat to the future of mankind (since, what, Barry Goldwater?) wasn't much of a “threat,” eh?

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.