The Thursday wrap |

The Thursday wrap

Odd rationale: The Wall Street Journal says the International Trade Commission employed a “strange bit of economic logic” in its report on the effects of steel tariffs on domestic, steel-consuming industries. The ITC argues that the $680 million in damage to the American private sector is nearly offset by the $650 million in “new” revenue that Uncle Sam gained from the tariffs. “(B)ecause the government got richer, we’re not supposed to worry about the competitive hit these companies have taken.” That, The Journal reminds, is “the same logic Democrats use to assail the Bush income-tax cuts.” Touche.

No wear guarantee: Political savant Dick Morris predicts that Gen. Wesley Clark “will not wear well” as a presidential candidate. Mr. Morris says Mr. Clark’s “early gaffes show his inexperience,” and the “initial enthusiasm for his candidacy really came from Europe, where this general who opposes war is the kind of guy only the elites of Paris can truly love. The only primary he has locked up is Democrats abroad.” Ouch.

Pecking order: Fleetwood Mac songstress/temptress Stevie Nicks tells Australia’s Herald Sun newspaper that the infamous Madonna-Britney Spears kiss was the “most obnoxious moment in television history.” How’s that• Madonna “is too old to be kissing someone who is 22,” Ms. Nicks said. Silly us, we thought she meant something else.

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.