The news story “Privacy concerns soar as drones patrol U.S. skies” (April 28 and TribLIVE.com) gave me nightmares.
I dreamt of a “Dr. Evil”-like President Obama indulging his creepy fascination with these mechanized peeping Toms — the president and “Mini-Obama” leering at a wall of flat-screen feeds showing places from Aspinwall to Zelienople.
I awoke, shuddering in fear. After a soothing medicinal beverage, I collapsed into a tortured vision of our skies shrouded with drones thick as a murder of crows. I heard the anguish of angry yinzers dialing the Department of Homeland Security switchboard: “Listen, hon. Git yer drone ahta my yard now ! It's messin' up my satellite TV. Don't make me come aht dere with my .22!”
Again I woke, drank, and slept again. This time, the dream was sweet and soothing, as Pittsburgh rose to smite the sky snoops. In rolled the clouds, as they do nearly 306 days per year here. Thwarted, the drones descended below the cloud deck, where some crashed into PPG Place's mirrored walls, while others were picked off by the city's peregrine falcons.
The remainder, disoriented by the functioning Point State Park fountain — a landmark not in their GPS — met their doom by ground fire. From Zambelli.
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.
- Treat UNC like PSU
- Superstition’s role
- Better stores needed
- Intelligent discussion overdue
- Ambrosini’s logic lacking
- Making it special
- Corbett over Wolf I
- Barbour sentence shameful
- Don’t fall for Wolf’s tax scheme
- Wrong on EPA water proposal
- Chamber’s choice