Share This Page

The Thursday wrap

| Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Two embattled federal employees have “retired.” First, there's Lois Lerner, at the center of the IRS scandal in which conservative groups were targeted a special hell. Then there's Robert Petzel, the Veterans Affairs undersecretary who was the subject of a Trib investigation that found he steered a consulting contract to a friend. How convenient. ...A former vice president of the federal Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (attached to the Office of Management and Budget) is upset that the United States lacks “centralized leadership” in privacy policy. Alan Charles Raul, writing in The Washington Post, thinks there should be a “privacy czar ... an uber-guru in charge of U.S. privacy policy.” Surely he jests. Here's a better idea — enforce the existing laws and prosecute the government violators. ... Says Fred Hiatt, also writing in The Post: “It seems obvious that military-style weapons with no hunting or self-defense purpose should not be circulating.” Who says those weapons have no such purpose? Of course they do. Saying they don't is pure ignorance, one of the biggest problems in the debate over guns. ... House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told a group at the Center for American (Liberal) Progress that the U.S. Constitution refers to self-evident truths and that all men are created equal. Good thing that she's not a contestant on “Jeopardy!” because she's wrong. Those words and sentiments are from the Declaration of Independence. Don't worry, though — she's just a high government official.

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.