The Thursday wrap
The movie “Gasland Part II,” the sequel to the fact-challenged anti-fracking film, features a scene in which a man lights something coming from his garden hose. The only problem is that the depiction is a hoax, as ruled by a Texas court. The hose had been connected to a gas vent. So much for a fair and balanced debate on the issue. ... Fox News reports that a Nevada family, forced at gunpoint in 2011 to surrender its home to police seeking tactical advantage in dealing with a neighboring domestic dispute case, has filed a Third Amendment challenge. But given that “police” are not “soldiers” (even when they recklessly act like an invading army), expect the case to be tossed. That said, the family likely does have a case under various other laws. Those against official oppression and malicious trespass come to mind. ... A pair of Columbia University researchers say the evidence supporting the need for outdoor smoking bans is “weak.” Writing in the journal Health Affairs, they also say such a flimsy rationale “is hazardous for public health policymakers, for whom public trust is essential.” Think of the boy who cried “Wolf!”... The latest round of Obama administration rules and regulations will cost Americans a bundle. The American Action Forum puts the bundle's price tag at $133 billion. Makes one long for the days when government rules and regs were measured in the mere millions of dollars, doesn't it?
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.