Greensburg Laurels & Lances
Lance: To the snow job that is the Laurel Mountain Ski Resort. Never mind the public money already squandered on this pipe dream when a private operator reopened the quad lift in 1999 — and went out of business in 2003. The state has plowed more than $513,000 into design work. But the facilities — under a lease with Seven Springs Mountain Resort — are no closer to opening. Why is this “resort” being publicly financed? Because no private operator with half a cerebrum would assume all the risk of this incredibly slippery slope.
Laurel: To Westmoreland County emergency crews. More than a dozen people were rescued from flooding in the aftermath of a monsoon-like storm that inundated the area with up to 2 1⁄2 inches of rain. Yes, this is the job of rescue personnel. And amid the chaos of rising floodwaters, they did it well.
Laurel: To the Flight 93 Advisory Commission. After a decade of meetings to plan the Flight 93 memorial in Somerset County, the panel is disbanding. What commission members accomplished, in partnership with other groups and government agencies, is a fitting tribute to the passengers and crew of the hijacked jetliner.
An observation: A Latrobe man will serve up to 50 years in prison for sexually assaulting two girls, ages 5 and 2. And for this, Frank Baker III, 24, who pleaded guilty, should be grateful. He could have faced life in prison. Notes Westmoreland Judge Rita Hathaway: “This is a gift from the commonwealth.”
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.
- Benchmarking questions: Fueling perversion
- U.N. Watch: Climate games
- Piercing the media’s shield: Muzzles & slopes
- Sunday pops
- Jesse White’s chutzpah
- Shenango shakedown: Public money at risk
- The Box
- Snow shovelers needed: A call for volunteers
- Saturday essay: The thumb itches
- Radar searches: Get a warrant