The New York Times devoted nearly the entire bottom half of its front page on Wednesday (and two full pages inside) to the death of folk singer/activist Pete Seeger. Good grief. Mr. Seeger once was an avowed communist whose most famous song — “If I Had a Hammer” — was written as an ode to U.S. Communist Party leaders on trial for advocating violent revolution against America. Even after he left the Communist Party, Seeger called himself a communist with a small “c.” It's never been more clear where The Times' sympathies lie. ... By executive order, President Obama says he'll establish “myRAs,” Roth IRAs billed as “starter” retirement savings accounts administered through employers. Unwittingly, the president has just proposed Social Security privatization. ... Mr. Obama also hinted in Tuesday's State of the Union address that he'll continue to pursue gun control “with or without Congress.” Never mind that the president has no constitutional authority to do such a thing without Congress. His promise will only reinforce that, at heart, he's a gun grabber. ... The Corbett administration has asked Commonwealth Court to reconsider its ruling that Pennsylvania's Voter ID law is unconstitutional. The bottom line is that the court's initial ruling opens a can of legal worms that, extrapolated, could end the practice of any government entity being able to ask its citizens for identification for accessing public services, another open invitation to fraud. Perhaps that's what “progressives” really want.
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.