Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
Laurel: To Bill Peduto. Pittsburgh's mayor has thrown his support behind Lyft, the sign-of-the-times driving service (booked through a smartphone app) that's driving the local taxi “duopoly” (if not state regulators) bonkers. Yellow Cab even has gone to City Council in an attempt to sic police on Lyft and other similar services. Isn't it amazing what a little innovation and competition do? Someone reinvents the wheel and the state-protected monopolists seek nothing less than state-directed retribution.
Lance: To The Toledo, Ohio, Block Bugler. It labels as “looney” conservative arguments that extended unemployment benefits discourage job hunting. “If there were any truth” to the contention “then more people should have been driven into the job market in January,” The Bugler editorialized this week. “But they were not.” But they were, dear Bugler: Those benefits expired on Dec. 28 and the labor participation rate increased in January. The Bugler drowns in its own spittle as it continues to carry water for the unsustainable economic policies of the Obama administration.
Laurel: To Gene DePasquale. The state auditor general slapped Pittsburgh Public Schools for talk of taking over the insolvent August Wilson black cultural center. “Fiscally irresponsible” is the phrase Mr. DePasquale used. We prefer the word “reckless.” After all — and it's no hyperbole — the district could very well face a state takeover if it doesn't change its ways. Still, the school board's leading Wilson Center takeover proponent, Mark Brentley, thinks it's a good idea. More's the pity.
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.