Members of the “global snow sports community” have sent a letter to President Obama claiming that “winter is in trouble” because of global warming. “(B)ecause we know this warming is human-caused,” and citing lost economic activity, the group urges the president to limit carbon pollution from power plants and to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. We have only three words for these climate cluckers — track and field. ... The Government Accountability Office says the finances and ridership projections of a proposed multibillion-dollar California high-speed-rail project are a mess. Key to the mess is missing “risk and uncertainty” data that are key to gauging the project's success or failure. The plug on this taxpayer-soaking boondoggle never should have been plugged in. ... Evan Soltas, writing for Bloomberg Ticker, notes that spending on public infrastructure in the United States has been pretty steady over the last 20 years. And he adds that while 29.9 percent of our bridges were rated “deficient” in 2009 — which, he reminds, does not mean they're on the verge of collapse — 37.8 percent were rated so in 1989. “(T)he idea that the U.S. has an infrastructure crisis” is a myth, Mr. Soltas writes. “A broad permanent increase in spending is unwarranted.” We can't wait for the nasty letters from the Infrastructure-Industrial Complex, the Society for the Preservation of Padded Contracts and Local 22 of AUUFWDJO — the Amalgamated Union of Using Five Workers to Do the Job of One.
Show commenting policy
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.