Share This Page

Sunday pops

| Saturday, Sept. 28, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

The Wall Street Journal's Dan Henninger says instead of attempting to defund ObamaCare, we should just let it collapse under its own progressive hubris. “The discrediting of the entitlement state begins next Tuesday,” he writes. “Let it happen.” Pity, though, that America will pay such a steep price. ... Iranian President Hassan Rouhani “passed on a much-anticipated handshake” with President Obama last week at the United Nations. That's how The New York Times reported it. But it should have been Mr. Obama passing on such cordialities until Iran, hinting at wanting to normalize relations with the United States, stops its efforts to make nuclear weapons and, oh, yes, stops killing people. ... House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi insists there's nothing left to cut in the pork-heavy pig known as the federal budget. It's a budget, by the way, that has increased by $1.9 trillion since 2001. But Competitive Enterprise Institute numbers crunchers easily identified billions upon billions of dollars of the fattest of fat. But, then again, it's pretty difficult to see such things when one is wallowing in the fat. ... The BBC reports that child psychologists are being given new guidelines that allow them to work with “adolescents” up to the age of 25. “It is hoped that the initiative will stop children from being ‘rushed' through their childhood and feeling pressured to achieve key milestones quickly,” reports the Beeb. All together now (with disdain and disgust): “OH, GROW UP!”

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.