The Thursday wrap
The Boston Herald reports that Family Tsarnaev, including the suspected Boston Marathon terrorists, received more than $100,000 in welfare benefits in the decade ending last year. That would include cash, food stamps and Section 8 housing. How many other would-be terrorists are taxpayers underwriting these days? ... In an astounding move, the federal government has actually decided not to reward employees for not doing their jobs. The Department of Veterans Affairs is docking bonuses for top officials who have been unable to meet their goals for reducing a giant backlog of disability claims. Will wonders never cease? ... Vanity Fair has posted photos of President Obama with his feet up on his Oval Office desk. But it's not just any desk. This desk was a gift from Britain's Queen Victoria to President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1880. Known as the Resolute desk, it was built from the timbers of an Arctic exploration ship of the same name. Nothing like disrespecting history. ... A state senator in Missouri proposed, then withdrew, an amendment to an education bill that would have banned the wearing of seersucker suits by those 8 and over. Why? “(Because) adults look ridiculous in seersucker suits,” Ryan McKenna, a Democrat, told Esquire magazine. He says the measure was “all in jest.” Voters could do themselves a favor by jesting Mr. McKenna out of office when he's up for re-election.
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.