Share This Page

Greensburg Tuesday takes

| Monday, April 22, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Monessen Falling: So, a lawyer and a developer from Staten Island, N.Y., who likely couldn't find Monessen on a map until recently, have grand plans for its revival as an artist colony (dubbed “Monessen Rising”) via a reality TV show, which doesn't even have a network contract. And some city leaders, since informed that the lawyer is $43 million in debt, still insist this is a good deal — the linchpin of which would be state funding? Monessen doesn't need a reality show. What it needs is a reality check.

Prudent move: “Runner-only” zones have been added to this year's Pittsburgh Marathon on May 5. That's in light of the bombings at the Boston Marathon. It's a prudent way to prevent spectators who might have evil on their minds from mingling too close to runners. Other beefed-up security measures are not being made public and for obvious reasons. About 26,000 runners are expected. Up to 100,000 spectators will line the race route. Here's to a successful, safe and record-setting marathon.

News flash!: Hempfield Area School District officials report an anticipated increase in health insurance costs — by one estimate, of up to $1 million — because of hidden fees and other surprises in ObamaCare. You know, the same costs that critics in 2010 were screaming about when the Democrat majority in Congress shoved through this abomination. As the full brunt of ObamaCare takes effect, some people will say, “We didn't vote for that!” Oh, yes they did — when they voted to re-elect President Obama and sealed this despicable deal.

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.