The Thursday wrap
The New York Times is aghast that changes to neighboring Ohio's election law mean that, among other things, those seeking absentee ballots will have to pay their own return postage. What, in the minds of wacko “progressives,” this is some kind of “poll tax”? The Buckeye State also is reining in “early voting” and “same-day registration.” Critics consider this an affront to minorities. Really? Why is it that we have an Election Day again? ... Don't look now but everything you've ever been told about the dangers of consuming saturated fats appears to be false. At least that's what a new study suggests in the Annals of Internal Medicine. Researchers caution that the findings should not be an invitation to once again load up on such foods. As per always, the key to good health remains having a balanced diet of multiple food groups. And that now appears to include a loaded triple hamburger. ... The Wall Street Journal details yet another thuggish case of federal lawlessness. The Labor Department erroneously (and we would say maliciously) targeted three Oregon berry growers for wage and child labor law violations that didn't exist. It extorted (and that's the only appropriate word for it) a quarter-million dollars out of the trio to release millions of dollars of berries that otherwise would have spoiled. The department also extracted a no-sue agreement. But two of the growers sued anyway and an Oregon judge sided with them. The matter is on appeal. The bottom line, however, is that the Labor Department should be prosecuted for rackets violations.
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 â 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.