ShareThis Page
The Thursday wrap |

The Thursday wrap

| Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:00 a.m

No chickens’ fools: A plurality of Americans — 44 percent — ascribe any climate changes to long-term planetary changes, a new Rasmussen poll finds. That continues a trend toward this commonsensical view. And that means the American people are waking up to the ruse that the liberal (if not socialist) social re-engineering complex is pushing, despite the growing body of evidence debunking its Chicken Little squawkings.

In other news: Perhaps lost in the transition of presidential administrations is word that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review has affirmed the government’s constitutional authority to use wiretaps to collect national-security intelligence from foreign sources. And we’ll bet — and we pray — that President Obama will employ this fully legal tool in pursuit of protecting us.

Good grief: Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell is hoping that the Obama administration will bring America an “activist” government that will provide universal health care and a plan to attack global warming. But after the country is bankrupted because of these programs, who does Mr. Rendell think will pay for everything?

Quote of the day: From the New York Post — “Maybe (actor Sean Penn would) ask tougher questions of (Fidel) Castro and (Hugo) Chavez if he didn’t have red stars in his eyes.” Ouch! But apropos.

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.