Share This Page

The Valley News Dispatch's Tuesday Takes

| Monday, Jan. 28, 2013, 8:59 p.m.

School security: Our schools will be facing some tough questions in the near future about how to protect students. Armed security? Police officers? The cost will be a significant factor. A district with five schools probably can count on spending at least $250,000 annually for police officers.

Insidious addiction: Most unsettling in Westmore-land's record number of overdose deaths in 2012 — 71 with 14 pending cases — are those instances in which people got “hooked” on prescribed painkillers and turned to heroin or other street drugs, according to officials. That's a wake-up call for doctors and patients when pain “relief” these days is just a pill away.

Bland is toast: Allegheny County Chief Executive Rich Fitzgerald supposedly has the votes to oust Port Authority boss Steve Bland when the mass-transit agency's board meets on Friday. The board delayed last Friday's meeting for a week, likely because its chairman, Jack Brooks, disagrees. Nothing like a little (or in this case, a lot of) palace intrigue.

“Independent” authorities?: There's an oxymoron, as the Port Authority situation highlights. Since Mr. Fitzgerald has control over authority board appointments, it's nothing more than his puppet. Running roughshod over authorities has been standard operating procedure for decades. If the state Legislature had any guts, it would act to end the ruse.

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.