Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
Come again?: The Toledo, Ohio, Block Bugler editorializes that since the Framers could not have envisioned DNA testing, swabbing the mouth of those arrested for their DNA is not a Fourth Amendment violation. Neither could the Framers have envisioned high-speed printing presses. Does this mean The Bugler has no First Amendment right to publish?
Stunning!: Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's office reports that hizzoner's city-owned SUV was a hit-and-run victim late last month. No one was in the parked vehicle at the time of the incident, believed to have happened either May 28 or May 29. What's so “stunning” about this? It at least suggests that the lame-duck mayor was at work — something not too many people have been able to verify as of late. Or at least his SUV was.
He's baaaack!: Liberal Tim Murphy, that is. The 18th District “Republican” congressman was one of six Pennsylvania GOP representatives who voted against repealing the Davis-Bacon “prevailing wage” mandate. Never mind that the GOP platform last year called for its repeal. Davis-Bacon, a sop to organized labor, inflates the costs of federal projects by billions of dollars each year. Remember this the next time Mr. Murphy says he's “fighting for taxpayers.”
Sigh: Take heart, all of you suffering from PTSD (Penguins Traumatic Stress Disorder) — the Pirates are doing relatively well so far this year. And Pirates Traumatic Stress Disorder likely won't set in until August.
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.