Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
Reprehensible crime: Friday's attack on an 85-year-old retired member of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Baden left her with a broken jaw that required surgery. Suspect Andrew Clarence Bullock, 18, of Aliquippa is jailed, awaiting a preliminary hearing on charges that include rape and aggravated assault. Here's hoping the attacker is convicted and sentenced to every bit of punishment allowed by law — fitting consequences for what surely was an act of depravity.
Signals crossed: PennDOT's apology to more than 20 motorists improperly detained last Thursday at the Fort Pitt Tunnels entrance — despite a PennDOT policy that forbids detaining any motorist — had better be humble and sincere indeed. They were stopped by a maintenance worker who accused them of running a red light — traffic had been halted for ice removal inside the tunnel — but they insist the light was green. Isn't it good to know that additional billions of dollars from taxes and fees will be going to such a competent agency?
Early Christmas gift: However much it warmed their fans' hearts on a frigid Sunday night, the Steelers' 30-20 win over Cincinnati was less an indication of a turnaround for this disappointing Pittsburgh team than it was an early Christmas present bestowed by the AFC North-leading Bengals living up to their “Bungles” nickname with first-quarter special-teams gaffes that the Steelers turned into a 21-point lead. And this victory certainly should not deter the Steelers' badly needed offseason revamping.
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 â 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.