The New York Times and CNBC made a big deal last week over Mao Zedong's 120th birthday. And the chipper accounts were simply abhorrent After all, China's late chairman of the Communist brand was responsible, directly or indirectly, for the deaths of, by one estimate, up to 78 million Chinese people. And this, The Times and CNBC celebrate? Sick. ... Federal workers laid off during October's government shutdown reportedly flocked to the Zoosk Internet dating site. Traffic was up by as much as 100 percent. Hey, what's a federal worker who can't surf porn while on the job to do, right? ... The Washington Times reports that Leesburg, Va., restaurateur Bryan Crosswhite has created an online site (2amendment.org) where gun-rights businesses can obtain “2AO 2014” window stickers that let legal gun owners know their right to bear arms is honored at their establishments. It's a great idea. And what a message it could be to would-be robbers as well. ... In neighboring Ohio, the law prohibits “secret compartments” in motor vehicles designed to conceal illegal drugs. But the arrest of a Michigan man has sparked a healthy Fourth Amendment debate. Norman Gurley was recently pulled over for speeding. A state trooper found a secret trunk compartment after he said he smelled marijuana. But the car was clean. Authorities allege Mr. Gurley was “between” drug “runs.” Is this not what a police state looks like?
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.