Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
Charlie's day: Things couldn't have gone much better for Charlie Batch on Sunday. The third-string (though journeyman) quarterback, three days shy of his 38th birthday, came off a lousy performance against Cleveland to lead the Steelers to an upset victory in Baltimore over the archrival Ravens. It was a stellar performance from a stellar Steeler that keeps Pittsburgh, now 7-5, solidly in the playoff picture.
Trauma central: Things couldn't be much worse for West Penn Allegheny Health System. Its debt is junk, it's most assuredly headed for bankruptcy and, now, the Securities and Exchange Commission appears ready to sanction the hospital system for bad old-fashioned book cooking. West Penn Allegheny admitted to inflating revenues by, oh, a measly $73 million a few years back. And the smiles grow wider over at UPMC.
Worm can: Washington County lawyer David DiCarlo, a Democrat, is suing 11 people — Ronald Levy and 10 unnamed others — over a website's claims that he says defamed him, costing him a close race for county district attorney last year. Republican Eugene Vittone defeated Mr. DiCarlo by 112 votes. Mr. Vittone says he had no connection to the website. But should DiCarlo prevail, it could change the face of political advertising. After all, the first casualty of campaigns usually is the truth.
Show commenting policy
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.