Share This Page

Pittsburgh Tuesday takes

| Monday, Aug. 26, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

What waste: The board of the Port Authority of Allegheny County has spent the last seven months searching for a new CEO for the mass-transit agency. But now word is that a newly constituted board could begin the search from scratch. What a monumental waste of time and resources. And it's the kind of behavior that only makes taxpayers more suspect of the authority's operations.

What nonsense: State Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa, a Democrat of Forest Hills, says Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican of Shaler, could do his troubled re-election effort a favor by supporting an effort to expand Medicaid in Pennsylvania. That's like saying a chicken can do the fox a favor by salting and peppering himself in advance of being eaten. Expanding a failed program is no recipe for success.

What now?: As if UPMC didn't already have its hands full with its battle against Highmark, it has unwittingly unleashed a groundhog war against some Bloomfield residents. UPMC is building a new parking garage and had the land cleared to begin the project. But that sent whistle pigs scampering for new digs. And they've been eating up everything in sight, residents say. Yes, we know, there's a metaphor in there.

What, us worry?: It's a critical week for the Pittsburgh Pirates. The Brewers are in town, followed by the Cardinals, the team that the Bucs are battling for the National League Central lead. The Pirates are in a bona fide pennant race. And after 20-straight losing seasons, isn't that grand.

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.