ShareThis Page
Sunday pops |

Sunday pops

| Saturday, February 28, 2015 9:00 p.m

Vice President Joe Biden, citing the wealth gap last week at a Black History Month event, called for the “emancipation” of people’s wealth. Oh, so that’s the Democrats’ new euphemism for redistributionism, is it? … Bank of America Merrill Lynch analyst John Lovallo is quite bearish on electric car maker Tesla. He says the company has “seemingly managed to offset a steady stream of negative news and weak financial results by issuing long-term targets that …. are often quite difficult to fathom.” Yet other analysts continue to be bullish, noting how Tesla appears to be transitioning more to an electric car battery supplier. Time will tell whether Tesla is a pig in a poke. But, right now, based on its stock price, investors continue to hope that any sow’s ear turns into a silk purse. … Writing in National Review Online, Henry Payne reminds that “the overwhelming majority of climate research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations.” And, he adds, that money goes “only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda.” So much for fair and balanced scientific inquiry. … As the ISIS threat appears to grow exponentially, the folks at Toyota must be quietly having a cow. More and more propaganda photos of ISIS supposedly “on the march” feature long lines of Toyota pickup trucks. “Toyota, the Official Truck of ISIS” is not the kind of optics any company savors.

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.