ShareThis Page

Nices & Naughties

| Friday, Dec. 23, 2011

Nice: The Bickerstons -- UPMC and Highmark -- have reached a deal to extend their contracts through June 30, 2013. But if these two health-care/insurance behemoths can keep working together for the next 18 months, why can't they do it permanently?

Naughty: The contention of the Pittsburgh chapter of the NAACP that requiring voter identification at the polls will disenfranchise black voters is a red herring. Protecting the integrity of the franchise should be everyone's goal.

Nice: Public/private parking lot sponsors will pay nearly a half-million dollars over the next three years to make it "free" to travel between Downtown and the North Shore Connector's first North Side stop.

Naughty: If the above sponsorship decision is based on the transit agency's wildly bogus ridership projections, those sponsors, hoping to boost their bottom lines with more parkers, will be sorely disappointed.

Nice: That depressed appraisal of a government-controlled North Shore property for which the Steelers were handed sweetheart development rights proves once and for all how such deals pervert the marketplace and shaft taxpayers.

Naughty: The American Chemistry Council is spending $500,000 on ads promoting Republicrat U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy's re-election bid. Mr. Murphy is facing his first formidable GOP primary challenge in years. Gee, anybody smell coordination ?

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.