Sunday pops |

Sunday pops

It’s refreshing to see Bob Casey taking a principled stand against the Obama administration’s onerous new emissions rules. Even though Pennsylvania’s senior U.S. senator supports many measures to combat “climate change” — with which, of course, we would disagree — he’s astute enough to know that what the president proposes would not only harm the Keystone State economy but scotch waste-coal power generation that will do more harm to the environment than good. … The Internal Revenue Service is at it again. Actually, it appears to never have stopped its Orwellian Big Brother ways. Thomas Lifson at the American Thinker reports that the IRS has been monitoring conservative blogs as fodder to fight back against being forced to reveal the identities of IRS employees involved in targeting conservative organizations for special scrutiny. Naming names supposedly would be a threat to those employees, the IRS contends. As Mr. Lifson reminds, this is the same IRS that claims it’s so understaffed that it can’t collect unpaid taxes or search for Lois Lerner’s infamously missing emails. … The New York Times’ Nate Cohn concludes that voter ID laws haven’t been swinging elections and that opponents have vastly overstated the “voter suppression” that these laws supposedly cause. Sayeth Mr. Cohn, “The impact of voter ID laws is basically indiscernible in the results.” Which confirms what we’ve long said about “progressives” — they’re all cluck.

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.