ShareThis Page

Sunday pops

| Saturday, Feb. 8, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

Asks Dan Calabrese, writing in Canada Free Press on the Obama administration's move to create seven Agriculture Department “climate hubs” to help farmers deal with climate change: “What do you think are the chances that anyone working in one of these ‘hubs' will ever make a recommendation of any kind that does not involve the expansion of government?” The answer, of course, is zero. ... Organizing for Action (OFA), the White House's political arm, has been forced to retool an online commercial shilling for an increase in the minimum wage. It seems one of the scenes depicting hardworking Americans — a woman riding a commuter train as she clutched her cup of coffee — actually was stock footage of a British woman riding London's Overground train. Responded OFA: “(T)his does not change the fact that Americans deserve a raise,” London's Daily Telegraph reports. Pay no attention to the idiots behind the curtain, eh? ... A Florida court has upheld the City of Orlando's eminent domain seizure of private property — not for public use but for two private entities — Major League Soccer and Orlando City SC — to build a soccer stadium. Floridians undoubtedly are longing for 1966, the year the Florida Supreme Court rejected Deerfield Beach's proposal to build a spring training facility for the Pittsburgh Pirates. As reminds, the court said the attempt violated the state's public purpose doctrine because the “benefits” of the facility were primarily private and any public benefit was mostly “incidental.” Ah, those were the days.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.