A British sociology lecturer is accusing the hosts of the BBC's “Gardeners' Question Time” of spreading racist and fascist messages. Such as? Ben Pitcher says talk of “soil purity” is code for racial purity, the Daily Mail reports. He also claims using the word “invasive” to describe non-native plant species is code for dissing foreigners. A guest even linked talk of problems with rhododendrons to being anti-Pakistani. The critics appeared on another BBC program, “Thinking Allowed.” They might want to try it sometime. ... A Texas A&M study has concluded that the $3 billion Cash for Clunkers program in 2009 ended up costing automakers between $2.6 billion and $4 billion in lost sales. That's because those who did purchase new vehicles spent between $2,500 and $3,000 less than others who bought new vehicles but were not eligible for the program. As The Wall Street Journal notes, “The basic economic illogic of Cash for Clunkers is that you can't create wealth by destroying serviceable assets and then force-feeding consumer spending on replacements.” Economics 101 forever will be a cipher for “progressives.” ... Fast on the heels of the announcement of higher fees for the flying public, supposedly in the name of enhanced security, comes word that the Department of Homeland Security is spending nearly half a million dollars for gym memberships for, among others, Transportation Security Administration desk jockeys in Washington. “Security” manifests itself in odd ways in the nation's capital.
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.