ShareThis Page

Closing arguments II

| Thursday, Jan. 17, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Watching the local reaction to the closing of SCI-Greensburg is very sad and very compelling based on whom the locals have overwhelmingly voted for in recent elections. It's funny — the same people who plead for the government to cut spending, still attend tea-party rallies and vote to elect these so-called “fiscal conservatives” now have such a quick change of heart when the job being cut is one that is held by someone in their house, or the school being closed is the one that their kids attend.

Our local legislators are also claiming they were “blindsided” by this closing. If true, they apparently garner no respect from the powers that be in Harrisburg — which in turn means that residents of Westmoreland County may need to reconsider who they vote for in upcoming elections.

It's interesting if all of our local “legislative players” actually were completely left out of this decision. Does this mean that the uproar over this from Sen. Kim Ward, R-Hempfield, Rep. Tim Krieger, R-Delmont, and the others makes them all hypocrites for opposing a plan to save the state money? Or just that their egos were very badly bruised when they were so publicly embarrassed by their own team?

Bob Rendar


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.