ShareThis Page
Midweek briefing … |

Midweek briefing …

| Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:00 a.m

The federal government has spent at least $13 million to help 2,400 farmers in 43 states erect greenhouse-like structures known as “hoop houses” over their crops to conserve warmth, extend the growing season and increase crop yields and profits, reports The Associated Press. Taxpayers are picking up the tab for anywhere from 50 percent to 90 percent of the cost. But why• If “hoop houses” are such a success, shouldn’t farmers risk their own money and reap the benefits• … The United States has slipped to ninth place in The Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom. The decline is attributed to “huge increases in government spending, which has led to nearly $14 trillion in total debt, and more regulation.” As if anyone would expect anything less from such government behavior. … A pet cat in Boston has been summoned for jury duty by Suffolk County (Mass.) Superior Court. And the owners have been told that the cat’s inability to speak or understand English is no grounds for disqualification. The obvious misunderstanding is expected to be cleared up when the cat, named “Sal,” reports for jury duty on March 23. Or not. Considering this matter has gone to this level, expect Sal to be not only selected for a jury but named the jury’s forecat.

Categories: News
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.