Greensburg Laurels & Lances
Lance: To wet-noodle justice. John W. Bennish of Hempfield pleaded guilty to breaking into the apartments of two coeds, allegedly stalking them, in a case described by a prosecutor as one “where the hairs on the back of the neck stand up.” But as a punishment, and supposedly a deterrent to like-minded individuals, Westmoreland Judge Debra Pezze sentenced Mr. Bennish to, in effect, five days in jail, plus nine months' house arrest and two years' probation. Why not just take him behind the courthouse and lash him with a wet noodle for all this sentence is worth?
On the “Watch List”: “Monessen Rising.” Even if by some miracle Monessen raises $8.5 million to match a portion of $30.5 million in public funding, which officials say is needed to convert the city into a modern-day artists colony, it's still a fool's bargain. Never mind who's going to buy this grossly subsidized housing and put down roots in Monessen. All this might make for good reality TV — as suggested by some plan proponents — but it's an absurd and unacceptable reality for Pennsylvania's taxpayers.
An observation: The Westmoreland County Democratic Party's inexorable march toward irrelevance continued Tuesday. These pathetic politicos had the best candidate for judge in Bill McCabe in the primary, facing two Republicans. But Dem Chairman Dante Bertani's gang couldn't get Mr. McCabe nominated to the Dem ballot in the fall. Incumbent Democrat row officers should start worrying about November.
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.