Share This Page

A lot of 'Waaaaa!' (& a few short shots)

| Saturday, Jan. 12, 2013, 8:57 p.m.

he Toledo, Ohio, Block Bugler has taken the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police to task for revealing, in a general press release, information asked and gathered by its reporters in a murder-suicide investigation for which city gendarmes weren't much forthcoming with information. And indeed, it appears to have been a bush-league performance by the chief and his public information officer.

That said, however, I can't seem to recall that The Bugler expressed any outrage when the functionaries of a prior city administration pretty much hand-delivered to The Bugler information gathered by the Trib on how the city was planning to address its looming pension crisis.

Neither can I remember any outrage when a certain functionary of a certain future United States senator lied ­— LIED — about the “readiness” of a commentary submitted to the Trib with the sole purpose of acceding to The Bugler's wishes to be able to publish that same “unready” commentary exclusively the very next day.

So, it's OK to benefit from such bush-league actions but when the bush league is turned, so to speak, well, that's another story, is that it? Waaaaa! ...

One of President Obama's illegal “recess appointments” to the National Labor Relations Board is coming back to bite him.

A federal lawsuit in California — filed by members of Local 501 of the International Union of Operating Engineers — alleges that sitting NLRB member Richard Griffin, the union's one-time general counsel, and others violated numerous provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, better known as the RICO Act.

The Washington Free Beacon reports that Mr. Griffin was served with the complaint last month. He's accused of engaging in a conspiracy in 2009 to manipulate the local's operations.

The NLRB's not talking. Griffin, through an attorney, denies the civil allegations.

Of course, anybody can file a lawsuit against anybody else alleging anything at all. But its very filing does not reflect very favorably on a gent who ascended to his federal post under bogus “recess” circumstances and without the vetting of a public Senate confirmation, a process that would have aired these allegations. ...

The same Chamber of Commerce that supported President Obama's “stimulus” packages, which only retarded America's economic recovery and helped to explode the national debt, now is calling for entitlement and tax reform and federal spending restraint.

Funny how quickly these Sycophants for Obama change their tune when the rancidness of “progressivism” becomes intolerable. ...

If you want a graphic idea of how imbecilic “progressivism” truly is, consider the words of Dean Baker of the far left Center for Economic and Policy Research, which is funded by no fewer than five labor unions and an assortment of leftist foundations.

In response to a vow by Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., to draw a line in the sand over the coming debt ceiling debate “by getting spending under control and restructuring the entitlement programs” — Mr. Baker accuses Mr. Toomey of holding an “extraordinarily radical position ... for an elected official.”

Good grief, talk about living in a parallel universe. These “progressive” cats truly are bent on scuttling this nation. Perhaps Baker should rebrand his group as the Center for Fascistic Economic and Socialist Policy Research.

Colin McNickle is Trib Total Media's director of editorial pages (412-320-7836 or cmcnickle@tribweb.com).

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.