ShareThis Page

Pittsburgh Tuesday takes

| Monday, Jan. 21, 2013, 8:53 p.m.

Root conundrum: Now that next month's Super Bowl matchup is set, Steeler Nation finds itself between a record and an animosity — root for the San Francisco 49ers to defeat the dastardly Baltimore Ravens (and thus root for the 49ers to tie Pittsburgh's record six titles) or root for the Ravens (and thus root for a flock of dastardly birds that usually are the necessary object of ire). Swallow hard. Hold your nose. And wish the dirty birds every success.

Jammed brains: In a Friday smearitorial, The Toledo, Ohio, Block Bugler called the National Rifle Association “one of the nation's biggest schoolyard bullies.” It went on to erroneously equate semiautomatic weapons with “machine guns” and claim that there's no constitutional right to possess “large magazines” of ammunition. On Sunday, it claimed the NRA's popularity, now exploding, is “sinking” and said even Nazi wretch Joseph Goebbels “would have spurned” the kind of “propaganda” the NRA has “unleashed.” Sick is one thing. Stupid is another.

South Side solutions: Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl says public safety “blitzes” will continue on the South Side for “as long as it takes” to restore a semblance of order to the increasingly rowdy and ribald behavior. That's all well and good. But the better approach would have been and will be to have an ongoing and consistent police and public safety inspection presence that prevents big messes rather than trying to mop up messes after the fact.

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.