ShareThis Page
Greensburg Tuesday takes |

Greensburg Tuesday takes

| Monday, February 2, 2015 9:00 p.m

Easy money: The case of a Greensburg woman allegedly scammed out of $3,500 by a con artist pretending to be an IRS agent is an indictment of a tax system that thrives on people’s ignorance. To wit: The victim wouldn’t have been fooled if the income tax code weren’t a maze of confusion. That’s underscored by the fact that this scam has pulled in an estimated $14 million since October 2013, authorities say. Of course, the thuggish perception of the IRS, worsened by recent scandals, doesn’t help.

Picture this: An investigation involving up to a dozen Penn-Trafford High School students confirms that “sexting” nude or partially nude photos is a continuing problem among young people. Except now kids are treating the photos like trading cards, says police Chief John Otto. Never mind the damage done by these images, which are not so easily removed from the Internet. Do parents who pay their children’s cellphone bills know what their kids are exchanging?

Better attuned to the public?: Ligonier Township’s enlarged Board of Supervisors (from three members to five) is up to its ears in its first hot topic: a new zoning ordinance and map regulating Marcellus shale drilling in the township. But do more “ears” mean that supervisors are listening more closely to residents’ concerns and will incorporate them? An elusive resolution to this thorny issue suggests otherwise. Bigger is not better government. Stay tuned.

Categories: Editorials
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.