The Thursday wrap
Federal government types claim that for every $1 spent on unemployment benefits, there's a $1.85 return to the economy. Well, if that's the case, why not simply put everybody on unemployment and really “boost” the economy? It's this kind of “progressive” illogic that is bankrupting America. .... A forthcoming book by neurologist Richard Saul claims attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, better known as ADHD, does not exist, reports the New York Post. It's not a “disease,” Dr. Saul insists; it's a collection of symptoms. And he says the symptoms can arise from relatively simple things (such as kids needing glasses and becoming frustrated, to adults not getting enough sleep) to the more complex — genetic mutations to fetal alcohol syndrome. The howls you hear come from the makers of Adderall and Ritalin. .... President Obama continues to be the best salesman for guns. The FBI says it performed more than 21 million background checks for firearms in 2013. That's 8 percent higher than 2012. (Factor out checks for those seeking concealed carry permits and the number is just under 15 million.) The Washington Times' Emily Miller reports that background checks have increased 66 percent since Mr. Obama took office. If this keeps up, gun manufacturers will have to pay the president royalties. Oh, and in case gun enthusiasts are still wondering why there has been a yearlong run on ammunition, this is why.
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.