Archive

ShareThis Page
Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances

Laurel: To Lester Nauhaus. For throwing a new book at convicted former Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin after her ordered first letter of apology appeared to blame her staff for her public corruption crimes.

Lance: To Tamara Davis. For allegedly stealing more than $9,000 from a secret fund whose discovery and abuse sent former Pittsburgh police Chief Nate Harper to the federal pokey. The civilian clerk is accused of theft and forgery.

Lance: To Doug Shields. For double-dipping. The former Pittsburgh city councilman collects a city pension. Yet next week, the council will discuss awarding him a $20-an-hour (up to $40,000 yearly) contract as a “consultant.” It’s the kind of deal that makes people suspicious of their government.

On the “Watch List”:The August Wilson Center. Does something stink in Dollar Bank’s sale of the insolvent black cultural center to a consortium of foundations just two days after the bank acquired it in a sheriff’s sale? The foundations’ purchase shafts a number of unsecured creditors. And that’s leaving a bad taste in a lot of mouths.

Laurel: To Robinson Patrolmen Noel Pilewski and Eric Maga. Having gone into a burning home twice Tuesday to rescue its 89-year-old owner, they went in a third time, with the Moon Run fire chief, to be sure no one else was inside. All should be grateful for such selfless first responders.


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.