Greensburg Laurels & Lances
Lance: To dipping into the state's slush fund. With plans for an athletic, educational and cultural center, St. Vincent College wants $8 million from Pennsylvania's contemptible Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program. But the college doesn't want to talk about (or otherwise defend) its request, among the many statewide that total $7 billion. Nope, the preferred protocol is to keep your mouth shut — and maybe you'll get the cash. No need to draw any attention to this pathetic system for divvying up the taxpayers' pie. It's more like a pie in the face.
Laurel: To a teacher's well-deserved lesson. The former Franklin Regional gym teacher and coach asked for leniency. What he got was five to 10 years in state prison, followed by 10 years' probation, for having a sexual relationship with a student, who was 16 at the time. Bret Anthony Thompson, 43, pleaded guilty to 46 charges. One seriously has to wonder what the so-called adults were thinking in these recurring cases. Let this one be a lesson to all.
Laurel: To the “G7” Summit. It's tough to put a precise dollar value on what's being saved in local costs by this cooperative confab, which in its fourth year brought together officials from Mt. Pleasant, Scottdale, South Connellsville, Connellsville, Everson, New Stanton and Youngwood. At the very least, leaders of these municipalities are talking to each other. And that helps sow the seeds of cooperation where few (if any) previously existed.
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.