Greensburg Laurels & Lances
Lance: To Monessen's “artist colony.” A Trib investigation into the city's plan to reinvent itself found that a New York attorney, hired at $3,000 per month to shepherd this project, is more than $43 million in debt, stemming in part from his own real estate dealings. So much for Monessen's due diligence. Yet still it's suggested that this boondoggle in the making should move forward on the public's dime — possibly with $600,000 in Marcellus shale state funding. Sorry, but the public's purse is not a piggy bank for venture capital, especially when the “venture” in question is so hopelessly muddled.
Laurel: To Westmoreland's gun-rights-conscious citizens. About 100 of them didn't get the county resolution that they wanted: to grant Westmoreland's sheriff the authority to challenge federal gun-control legislation. Legally, it would never fly. But these residents did signal, quite convincingly, to their representatives in Greensburg, Harrisburg and Washington that they are not going to tolerate any federal erosion of their Second Amendment rights.
Lance: To Lorrie Sue Fisher. It's bad enough that this Friedens woman pleaded guilty to stealing more than $5,000 from a Vietnam veterans organization in Somerset County, where she worked as the group's bookkeeper. She was sentenced to 23 months in jail and ordered to pay restitution. But Ms. Fisher herself is an Air Force veteran. So much for “service to country”; her service to self is putrid.
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.