ShareThis Page
Editorials

Sunday pops

| Saturday, June 3, 2017, 9:00 p.m.
A PPG Paints Arena employee removes a catfish from the ice thrown by a fan in the second period of Game 1 of the NHL Stanley Cup Final on Monday, May 29, 2017, at PPG Paints Arena.
Christian Tyler Randolph | Tribune-Review
A PPG Paints Arena employee removes a catfish from the ice thrown by a fan in the second period of Game 1 of the NHL Stanley Cup Final on Monday, May 29, 2017, at PPG Paints Arena.

Amid comparisons of Watergate and possible Trump campaign-Russia ties, this PoliticsPA headline caused a double take Wednesday: “Exclusive: Houlahan Adds Plumbers Endorsement to Early Campaign Moves.” Actually, Plumbers Local 690 is backing Democrat Chrissy Houlahan, a prospective 2018 challenger to U.S. Rep. Ryan Costello, R-Chester. But for those who remember Richard Nixon's covert “White House plumbers” — a leak-plugging unit that went on to burglarize the Democratic National Committee's Watergate hotel headquarters — it's a relief that G. Gordon Liddy & Co. aren't involved in this congressional race. … Misdemeanor charges against the Predators fan who threw a dead catfish onto the PPG Paints Arena ice during Monday's first Stanley Cup Final game were dropped last week. That's lucky for him, as his prospective legal defense faced challenges. The Tennessean reports that a former Nashville-area assistant prosecutor, who had offered that fan free legal representation but would have needed a Pennsylvania lawyer's help, tweeted: “Where you at Flyer-fan-attorneys in PA??” More to the point, someone better at criminal defense than the Flyers are at hockey would have been needed. After all, Philadelphia hasn't won the Cup since 1975. Somehow, reminding Flyers fans of that fact — attorneys or not — never gets old.

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.

click me