The Thursday wrap
This is outrageous!: A White House task force draft report contends that "climate change" has wrought "pervasive, wide ranging" effects on the United States, including "increasingly severe floods, droughts, wildfires and heat waves, along with rising sea levels ... ." This is the same kind of garbage-laced exaggeration that forced an advertising watchdog group in Britain to ban government ads claiming the same thing. Americans should not stand for such pure fiction.
Your point, Howie?: Washington Post media pundit Howard Kurtz says that uber-popular Fox News Channel talk show host Glenn Beck has achieved "lightning-rod status" by, in part, "branding progressivism a 'cancer.'" But that's exactly what this extreme form of liberalism -- pretty much textbook socialism -- actually is. Mr. Beck is merely stating a truth that rank-and-file, garden-variety socialists fear.
Smearing the Thomases: The Los Angeles Times bends over backward in its attempt to smear Clarence and Virginia Thomas. He, of course, is an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. She, of course, is his very scholarly wife who recently created Liberty Central Inc., a nonprofit lobbying group. The Times tries in the worst way to say this represents a conflict of interest. But given that the Thomases have a stellar record of never mixing their professional lives, none exists. Period.
Show commenting policy
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.