“A law granting special privileges to the press effectively gives the government the power to license the press by deciding who qualifies.”
— James Taranto, writing in The Wall Street Journal, on why a federal press “shield law” is a bad idea.
“How strange that a country that once tore itself apart over who said what about Valerie Plame now snores when its top officials lie under oath and the most intimate details of our national security are leaked to the press.”
— Victor Davis Hanson, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, writing at NationalReviewOnline.com.
“As ever, increasing government education funding to students is pocketed by universities in the form of tuition increases. The never-ending federal effort to “make college affordable” simply provides the resources to sustain higher prices.”
— from a Wall Street Journal editorial.
“Proponents of political correctness say it is a way that we can be kind and courteous to everyone, but they need to recognize that it is quite possible to be respectful without imposing an unspoken law that is antithetical to one of the founding principles of our nation — namely, freedom of expression and freedom of speech.”
— Benjamin Carson, writing in The Washington Times.
“We can't have a stronger economy and more employment if we discard part of the power-generating capital stock. ... We cannot become richer over time by making ourselves poorer in the here and now.”
— Benjamin Zycher, an American Enterprise Institute scholar, writing in The American Magazine on the fallacy of the Obama administration's “green energy” programs.
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.