ShareThis Page

The Thursday wrap

| Wednesday, March 26, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

Britain's Centre for Economic Policy Research (not to be confused with the ultra-liberal U.S. Center for Economic and Policy Research) disputes the blanket notion that shale gas extraction is creating some kind of “energy revolution” in this country. As it sees it, “Even if current estimates of production turn out to be accurate, the benefits to the U.S. economy in the long run are relatively small, and the benefits to manufacturing competitiveness in most sectors are even smaller.” Which makes us wonder, again, why the Corbett administration is dangling all those billions of dollars in public “incentives” in front of Shell's proposed cracker plant in Beaver County. ... We understand there's no truth to the rumor that suddenly departed Kathleen Kane spokesman Joe Peters has entered the Burned Flack Protection Program. ... Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., agrees with Bill Maher's suggestion that Democrats should “come out against the Second Amendment.” “I sure wish they would,” Mr. Ellison retorted on the lapsed comedian's HBO “news” show. And here we thought members of Congress swear to “bear true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution. ... Former President Jimmy Carter says he so distrusts America's intelligence apparatus that he no longer trusts email or telephone communication to be secure. Mr. Carter says he only hand-writes or types and mails sensitive letters to foreign and U.S. leaders. Thanks for the tip, Jimmy. And we'll bet the National Security Agency, FBI and CIA thank you, too, and now are screening all of your outgoing mail.

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.