Laurel: To the Pittsburgh Pirates. The Battlin' Bucs exceeded all expectations but their own this season. They broke an embarrassing string of 20-consecutive losing seasons. They made it to the postseason. They won a wild-card game against Cincinnati. And then they took perhaps the toughest team in Major League Baseball, the Cardinals, to a deciding fifth game in the divisional series before a disappointing loss Wednesday night. But in all they did, they did it with class, from Manager Clint Hurdle to every player and every member of the support staff. Yes, the Pirates are back. But they'll be back even better next season.
On the “Watch List”:
• Westmoreland Manor. Westmoreland County commissioners again say that steps must to taken to rein in the def icit at the county nursing home, which, at $1.3 million, is projected to climb as high as $4 million annually. Yet they tell the union representing the home's 500 workers that selling the property — an option exercised by other counties — is off the table. Given the costs to taxpayers, all options should be under consideration.
• School volunteers' background checks. Most school districts have no qualms charging parents for things such as “student activity fees.” But paying for school volunteers' background checks? Why, taxpayers shouldn't be burdened with that, some Franklin Regional school directors say. Residents who donate their time and talents deserve a fair hearing on the assignment of this cost.
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.