Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
The Gallagher era: One of the first criticisms of Patrick Gallagher as the University of Pittsburgh's chancellor-in-waiting has been that he has little or no fundraising experience. And, indeed, that can be an integral part of the job. But in picking a leader with extensive business and science experience — where the same interpersonal skills necessary for successful fundraising are employed — Pitt's trustees appear to be acknowledging that the job is far more than just being a glorified schmoozer. Mr. Gallagher, 50, the acting deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce and director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, will succeed retiring Chancellor Mark Nordenberg on Aug. 1. We wish Mr. Gallagher every success.
Rationalizing sloth: The Toledo, Ohio, Block Bugler derides “conservatives who don't want to subsidize anyone” for criticizing ObamaCare as “a proven job killer.” (The Congressional Budget Office says the law could reduce full-time equivalent employment by 2.5 million jobs by 2024. We report, you deride.) But in the process, The Bugler appears to tacitly endorse gaming the system — in which lower income workers can reduce their hours or not work at all in order to continue receiving subsidized ObamaCare — as just another “choice.” Pity the poor schmucks who choose to work and are forced to pay for ObamaCare's sloths.
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.
- The Thursday wrap
- Another carbon credit scheme
- James Foley, 1973-2014: Fighting on
- More foreign aid is no answer to border problem
- Tuesday essay: Sophie
- Rick Perry’s indictment: The real abuse
- Recasting the EPA: Devolving power to the states