The Thursday wrap
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear oral arguments in a case out of Ohio that's expected to determine if outright lies in campaign ads are protected under the First Amendment. Should the court find they are not, and given that so many campaign ads make Pinocchio's nose look pug, that could spell the end of dirty lying pols as we know them. ... Taxpayers are footing a $700,000 bill for a troupe to stage its climate-change play “The Great Immensity.” As Elizabeth Harrington writes in The Washington Free Beacon, the sparse production features “singing and dancing about a carrier pigeon named Margaret and the not-so-subtle message that the planet will be destroyed in 50 years.” It's government propaganda at its worst, the kind one routinely sees in China and North Korea. ... The Competitive Enterprise Institute notes that Washington, D.C.'s beloved cherry blossoms reached their peak this year on April 10, which is the latest “peak blossom date” in 21 years. Which must be driving the cluster-cluckers of “global warming” theology absolutely nuts. ... Speaking of grove-variety pecans, “progressives” are in a tizzy-fit over a finding by Kim Strach, North Carolina's director of elections, that suggests nearly 36,000 people with the same names, birth dates and Social Security numbers voted both in the Tar Heel State and other states in 2012. Another 81 North Carolinians voted after they died, reports The Washington Times. But remember, voter fraud is a figment of the conservative imagination.
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.