ShareThis Page
The Thursday wrap |

The Thursday wrap

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
| Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:00 a.m

Still misguided: Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona heaped praise on defeated, departing Democrat Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin on Tuesday. And he was quick to remind colleagues that Mr. Feingold partnered with him on the “landmark” campaign-finance reform legislation —which eventually will be struck by the Supreme Court for the Constitution nose-thumbing that it is. Good riddance to Feingold. What a shame that Mr. McCain still doesn’t get it.

Another consequence: One of New York’s largest union-administered health-insurance funds is dropping coverage for the children of more than 30,000 low-wage home attendants, reports The Wall Street Journal. The affiliate of the Service Employees International Union blames a state mandate to buy coverage from a third party (the state denies this) and an ObamaCare provision that allows “children” to remain on their parents’ health insurance up to age 26. Ah, another example of the “benefits” of “progressivism.”

Can’t make this up: The “progressive” Chicken Littles are at it again, this time in Cancun at the United Nations gathering of global-warming cluckers. The Telegraph of London reports that Professor Kevin Anderson presented a paper claiming that “the only way to reduce global emissions enough — while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow — is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next 20 years.” Pecans apparently still are in season.

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.