The Thursday wrap
Hillary Clinton referred to civil rights icon Medgar Evers as Medgar Evans in a Monday speech before the American Bar Association's annual meeting in San Francisco. And here we thought messing up names was Joe Biden's job. ... The Pennsylvania Alliance for Retired Americans was allowed to infiltrate the Mt. Washington Senior Center on Thursday to supposedly set the record straight about Social Security, which turned 78 on Wednesday. “Social Security is not ‘broke' as its opponents would have us believe,” alliance president Jean Friday said in a statement announcing the visit. The alliance wants to tax people even more in an attempt to keep the unsustainable sustainable. It not only has no understanding of what Social Security really is — there is no “trust fund,” Ms. Friday — but no shame as well. ... A federal appeals court has ruled that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission violated the law by letting the Obama administration shut down the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site. The key phrase in the ruling was “flouting the law,” which is a metaphor for this administration. ... The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says 2012 “was among the 10 warmest years on record.” But as climate blogger Pierre Gosselin notes, the report fails to mention that last year was one of the coolest of the decade. “(T)he report gives the ... impression that warming is galloping ahead out of control. But (NOAA's) data show just the opposite.” There's “science” and then there's science.
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.