Greensburg Laurels & Lances
Lance: To the Jeannette recreation center runaround. In a city without a clue to its own fiscal management, this latest farce should be the final straw: A $65,000 grant from the state Department of Community and Economic Development (which, itself, is no bastion of fiscal accountability) was supposed to pay for a new rec center's steel frame, which by all accounts was never produced by a now-defunct company. That was six years ago. Where's the money? Nobody seems to know. Never mind the state's apparent failure to follow up on the grant. Such stunning disregard for public money is reason enough for Jeannette's Act 47 state oversight.
On the “Watch List”:
• The “Harlem Shake” stakes. Citing students' free-expression right, two organizations are challenging the suspensions of 13 Brownsville Area High School students for making a Harlem Shake dance video at school. But school officials say the students disregarded instructions from a substitute teacher in violation of the school's disciplinary code. Whether the students danced the controversial shake or broke into a spontaneous rumba, since when does free expression exempt them from school policies while on school property?
• Video prison visits. Providing “web chats” between Westmoreland County Prison inmates and their families and/or lawyers via personal computers sounds promising except for one detail: Public defenders would not be charged to video-chat with their clients behind bars but private lawyers would have to pay. That's not equal access. And that could cost the county a legal challenge.
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 â 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.