The Thursday wrap
If you want an idea of how absolutely screwed up Norway's Nobel Institute is, consider that it has nominated Vladimir Putin for the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize. No, it has nothing to do with his invasion of Ukraine but, incredibly, for his work to bring “peace” to Syria. See, opportunism really does have its rewards. ... The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia has reinstated a law that bars funeral homes from serving food. As if this should be any of “the state's” business. Here's to the industry thumbing its nose at idiocy. Cabbage rolls, anyone? ... The federal Earned Income Tax Credit program already loses about $11 billion annually to improper payments. Yet the Obama administration, in its proposed fiscal 2015 budget, seeks to expand it at an additional cost of $60 billion over the next decade. This would add an estimated 13.5 million Americans to the rolls of those who don't pay any taxes. And the state of dependency grows and grows and grows. ... A poll suggests that an overwhelming majority of residents in Virginia, New Jersey and New York support a federal gun registry. What a tragedy that so many supposedly educated people can be such sheeple. And at Monticello, Thomas Jefferson surely must be spinning in his grave. ... How bad is “global warming”? (“How bad is global warming, Johnny?”) It's so bad that Niagara Falls has frozen over. Throw two more logs on the fire, honey. This climate change thing is getting out of control.
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.