ShareThis Page
Editorials

The Thursday wrap

| Wednesday, April 23, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

The Obama administration has discovered that loose lips sink specious legal arguments. A federal appeals court has ordered it to make public key portions of its legal rationale for the targeted killing of people linked to terrorism, including Americans. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the administration had no argument for secrecy because it had made repeated public statements about that rationale. That said, the same court redacted part of its rationale and even redacted part of its own decision. Ahem. ... Sayeth United Auto Workers President Bob King, announcing that it has dropped a challenge to Volkswagen workers in Chattanooga, Tenn., rejecting unionization: “The UAW is ready to put February's tainted election in the rear-view mirror.” Ah, yes, ungracious and arrogant as ever in defeat. ... Surely The Nation's Katha Pollitt was pulling out her hair and her eyes were bulging when she penned an Earth Day screed that essentially claims the globe is cooked because of mankind's inaction to battle “global warming.” She actually laments the fact that “our system” will not allow save-the-Earth-come-lately actions — such as forcing everyone to go vegetarian, using cars and planes only for emergencies, banning tree-cutting to build houses, banning air conditioning and forcing the oil, gas and coal industries to heel to government diktats. Ms. Pollitt, take two Valium (or more) and, please, don't call anybody in the morning.

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.

click me