The federal government says its new clean coal rules could raise the cost of electricity by up to 80 percent. Which would, effectively, kill the coal-fired electric-generation industry. Which, of course, is what the Obama administration long ago said it wanted. Throw another pol on the fire, honey; it's getting ridiculous outside. ... The command economist in the White House has signed his executive order decreeing that the minimum wage for new federal contract workers be raised to $10.10 an hour beginning next Jan. 1. Here's an ongoing economics class project for Ralph Reiland's students at Robert Morris University: Begin tracking, year by year, the increased contract costs to American taxpayers. It will be a great way to expose the fallacy of “progressive” economics. ... Mark Hulbert, The Wall Street Journal's “MarketWatch” columnist, is sounding alarm bells over the “eerie parallels between the stock market's recent behavior and how it behaved right before the 1929 crash.” And if the pattern holds, Mr. Hulbert says “the market faces a particularly rough period later this month and in early March.” That said, Hulbert notes that one of those publicizing the similarities the most is a hedge fund manager. So perhaps we should all consider the supposed coming doom with a grain of salt and a bushel of speculation. ... The Washington Times reports that participants in an annual NAACP march in North Carolina were required to have a valid photo ID — the same kind of ID they insist is discriminatory when required for voting. Busted!
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.