ShareThis Page

Sunday pops

| Sunday, Sept. 26, 2010

Iranian President Mahmoud Ramma-Lamma-Ding-Dong, er, Ahmadinejad, suggested during last week's address before the United Terrorist Coddling Nations, er, U.N., that the United States government might have orchestrated the 9/11 attacks in an effort to bolster Israel. And here we thought budget cuts had canceled the U.N.'s Looney Tunes Guest Lecture Series. ... Washington Post reporter Amy Gardner writes that the tea party movement "has no central leadership or single goal." It's framed as a weakness. But it's the movement's greatest strength. And that the old guard doesn't understand the precept shows why there's going to be an electoral "refudiation" on Nov. 2. ... Surging Republicans have released their long-awaited governing blueprint, a "Pledge to America." Having a plan is great but follow-through, of course, is everything. If, as so many sadly suspect, there really isn't a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans, more than an electoral revolution will commence. ... More than 300 economists have signed a letter stating that failure to extend the Bush-era tax cuts will devastate growth. Obamanomics hasn't worked. What a novel idea -- return to fundamental economics. ... Offers the United Kingdom's Guardian newspaper: "The best outcome anyone now expects from December's climate summit in Mexico is that some delegates might stay awake during the meetings." Perhaps we should all order an extra cord of wood about now. We hear it's going to be a cold winter. ... Charlie Batch starts as quarterback today for the Steelers at Tampa Bay. It would be nice to think that Charlie's finally getting the respect he deserves for his character and skills. Sadly, he was picked because he's the only signal-caller the Steelers have left. Sigh.

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.