Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
After Harper: Now that former Pittsburgh police Chief Nate Harper has pleaded guilty to conspiring to steal nearly $32,000 in public money for private use and failing to file income tax returns over four years, the focus returns to finding a new, permanent chief. Some have suggested an insider with intimate knowledge of the city be chosen. But it would be more prudent to find an outsider who can eradicate the perception that “insiderism” has promoted a culture of corruption within the bureau's hierarchy.
Shake, shake, shake: The shake-up at The Heinz Endowments continues. The latest to get what appears to be the Big Boot is President Robert Vagt. Though nobody at the region's second-largest foundation is talking, others suggest the housecleaning involves its Center for Science, Economics and the Environment having the audacity to attempt to work with the burgeoning shale natural gas industry. If the shake-up signifies the endowment's return to its more eco-wacko ways, it's quite the shame.
Canning “canning”: The growing practice of “canning” — collecting donations for myriad causes at busy intersections — is forcing some local police departments to crack down on the illegal but often tolerated activity. Simply put, it not only often backs up traffic but it creates a hazard for motorists and “canners” alike. There are better and safer methods to raise money for worthy causes. And surely those who are more creative will reap greater rewards.
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.