The Thursday wrap
If you want a stark lesson in how messed up America's pimps for “progressivism” can be, consider one case before the U.S. Supreme Court this term. In Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, the court essentially is being asked to determine if states that amend their constitutions to ban discrimination in the name of ending discrimination are violating the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. George Orwell would be proud. ... Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has dropped his subscription to The Washington Post because it's too “shrilly liberal,” New York Magazine reports. He says The Post was “slanted and often nasty” in its “treatment of almost any conservative issue.” Frankly, we're surprised it took him so long to notice. ... Notes The Wall Street Journal, “If ethanol is the miracle its supporters claim, it shouldn't need a mandate or subsidies.” It's the standard axiom that should be applied to anything that government insists is “good.” ... “The Simpsons,” that iconic Fox show featuring Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa and Maggie, has been renewed for a record 26th season. Excellence knows no bounds, after all. ... The Obama administration likes to tout how supposedly in tune it is with average American Joes and Josephines. But on the eve of the government shutdown, its State Department awarded a five-year, up-to-$5 million contract for custom handcrafted crystal stem- and barware for use at American embassies worldwide. Joe and Josephine, meet John and Teresa.
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.