Greensburg Laurels & Lances
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Thursday, Jan. 16, 2014, 8:55 p.m.
Laurel: To Irvin Tantlinger. The Ligonier Valley School Board member didn't give the customary “good deal” spiel that typically accompanies the approval of a new teachers contract. No, Mr. Tantlinger, speaking on his own behalf, detailed the district's contract ordeal for what it was: a lopsided negotiation “because of the held-hostage effects of the union” with the strike option. Here's hoping that before the next contract comes due, Harrisburg will have disarmed teachers of their strike cudgel and leveled the playing field.
Lance: To the Ligonier Valley teachers union. Its wretched platitudes about students, their education and community devotion — now that teachers got what they wanted — are putrid. District taxpayers who don't pull in anywhere near the maximum $75,000 salaries of teachers with their master's degrees (up to almost $78,000 under the new deal) now face two consecutive years of all-but-certain tax increases. So spare us the sanctimony and let's be clear on the distinction between what goes to educating children — and what goes directly into teachers' pockets.
Lance: To idle minds. Only those pathetically addled would report a bogus emergency to police. Yet Westmoreland Emergency Management received just such a “swatting” text message about a man supposedly with an automatic weapon and dead bodies at a Jeannette residence. Aside from the toll on police is the possibility of a real catastrophe if an actual emergency arises while authorities are distracted.
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.
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.