Northeast Times

Letters to the Editor (June 26, 2013)

School dis­trict has money for big salar­ies

Our new school dis­trict head, Mr. Wil­li­am Hite, seems to be mak­ing a spec­tacle of all the cuts he needs to make to keep our schools open in the fall. Stu­dents have hit the streets, pick­et­ing and protest­ing with an en­thu­si­asm they seem not to have in the classroom.

Haven’t we seen this movie be­fore? Dire claims, pub­lic fear, and then ca­pit­u­la­tion to more taxes?

In the midst of all this “aus­ter­ity” I no­ticed in The Daily News the school dis­trict had the money to hire Na­omi Wyatt as a hu­man re­sources of­ficer — the pre­vi­ous of­ficer earned $175,000. Ms. Wyatt may be qual­i­fied, but the fact that she is a former Rendell cab­in­et mem­ber, raises eye­brows over such a hir­ing at this time. A former city L&I ex­ec­ut­ive, Ms. Fran Burns, was also hired to a top job in May. Aus­ter­ity?

I went on the school board web­site and tried to get in­to its staff dir­ect­ory, but it was un­avail­able.

I won­der who else with a polit­ic­al back­ground sits on the payroll, and at what salary? If we had a loc­al TV news me­dia less ob­sessed with the weath­er and celebrity gos­sip, maybe we could find out.

I want the school dis­trict, its stu­dents and sup­port­ers to know I be­lieve in edu­ca­tion, the arts, and the sup­port ser­vices that are threatened — but the rest of us are threatened too, with ever high­er taxes.

Grandma may also have to de­cide on cuts — to her pre­scrip­tions, or her air-con­di­tion­ing.

We all make hard choices these days; so should the school dis­trict. Just make the right ones.

Richard Iac­on­elli

Rhawn­hurst

Richard Iac­on­elli is right on mar­riage

We totally agree with Richard Iac­on­elli’s stand on same-sex mar­riage. 

I don’t think mor­als are con­signed to a cer­tain de­gree or time. It was wrong in the ’50s and it’s wrong now. Same-sex mar­riage is one more ter­rible ex­ample for chil­dren, male or fe­male.

As for un­fit par­ents, our so­ci­ety per­mits people to have chil­dren who are in­cap­able of rais­ing them. Each child pretty much is just an­oth­er decim­al point on the wel­fare check — be­ing paid for be­ing stu­pid, and we, the work­ing class, are ex­pec­ted to sup­port gen­er­a­tion­al same-fam­ily ab­use of the wel­fare sys­tem. Breed­ers and eat­ers — a point­less waste of tax­pay­er money. Or maybe we can find these chil­dren a home with same-sex mar­riage part­ners. What choice do they have?

Then we have H. Stein­berg, who says in her let­ter (May 24 is­sue), reek­ing of rampant lib­er­al­ism, every­one should do whatever they want and a lot of people are do­ing just that in all areas of life. Look at the crime rate, drug murders, rob­ber­ies, sexu­al dis­eases, etc., just do­ing what they want. Everything is so open and lib­er­al. 

Right will al­ways be right, and wrong will al­ways be wrong. You can put a rose on a goat, but it’s still a goat.

We would like to see Mr. Richard Iac­on­elli in pub­lic of­fice or at least have a weekly column in this won­der­ful news­pa­per.

Joan Dahl­berg

Ta­cony

Iac­on­elli is wrong on same-sex mar­riage

Mr. Iac­on­elli, I read your let­ter thank­ing two re­spond­ents to your gay mar­riage let­ter.

I want to thank you for chal­len­ging someone to ex­plain how this af­fects our chil­dren.  The fact is, it doesn’t af­fect our chil­dren any more than grow­ing up in a one-par­ent fam­ily.

Who are you to de­cide that boys don’t want to be “in­struc­ted” by a les­bi­an and that girls don’t want to be “in­struc­ted” by gay men? Have you done any re­search to sup­port your the­ory? Have you spoken to any chil­dren in these cir­cum­stances?

Or is this just your nar­row-minded, big­oted opin­ion on how things are in these situ­ations.  It’s time for you to get over your­self. 

Your views are not sac­rosanct. People in gay mar­riages are just like the rest of us, provid­ing a lov­ing home for their chil­dren to grow up in.

Don’t at­tack them. You don’t even know them.

Joe Oren­stein

Bustleton

Re­pub­lic­an states are get­ting sub­sidies

Farm sub­sidies. Wa­ter sub­sidies. Rail­road sub­sidies. Mail sub­sidies. There’s even a mo­hair goat sub­sidy!

Enough already.

I pro­pose an amend­ment to the Con­sti­tu­tion of the United States of Amer­ica. I call it the “End So­cial­ism in Amer­ica Amend­ment.”

Here it is: “No State, nor its people, shall re­ceive more in ap­pro­pri­ations from the United States than it and its people pay in taxes to the United States.”

Com­rades Bach­mann and In­hofe and Pal­in and the oth­er Re­pub­lic­an Reds will learn the real mean­ing of so­cial­ism once we take it away from them.

Howard J. Wilk

Pine Val­ley

Mi­chael Nut­ter is a do-noth­ing may­or

The may­or of this city needs to be held re­spons­ible for his neg­lect of pro­tect­ing the in­fra­struc­ture of this city.

May­or Nut­ter is so busy us­ing every re­source he has to battle those who work hard to sup­port this city that he has no plan what­so­ever to move this city for­ward.

All this guy does is at­tack us tax-sup­port­ing res­id­ents.

He brings noth­ing to the table ex­cept high­er tax bills and lay­off no­tices. Noth­ing.

Timothy T. Gass

Somer­ton

Holo­caust edu­ca­tion shouldn’t be man­dated 

I wish to re­spect­fully dis­agree with Rep. Brendan Boyle and Mr. Feld­man on the idea of man­dat­ing Holo­caust teach­ing in the school sys­tem.

The main reas­on is that the Holo­caust is already men­tioned in the Cath­ol­ic schools and pre­sum­ably the pub­lic. This was an ab­om­in­a­tion in his­tory, and his­tory can­not pos­sibly be taught without some men­tion of the plight of the Jews — not only then but throughout time.

It was my re­cent pleas­ure to sub­sti­tute at a Cath­ol­ic gram­mar school and the eighth-grade stu­dents were read­ing a book by the famed Holo­caust chron­icler, Elie Wies­el.

I am now por­ing through a high school text­book which men­tions Hitler, the Jews and the “Fi­nal Solu­tion.” It is a teach­er’s duty to talk about such things if one wishes to un­der­stand the present and the role of hate in his­tory.

But to le­gis­late it leaves the door open to one group re­ceiv­ing spe­cial at­ten­tion to an­oth­er. I re­mem­ber some years ago Rep. McGee­han wanted the Ir­ish hor­rors in­ser­ted in­to the cur­riculum.

If all re­quests are le­gis­lated and ad­hered to, his­tory will be sliced like a pie but without a por­tion large enough to sat­is­fy every­one.

The very pur­pose of the sub­ject is to learn about people, who we were, how we reached a cer­tain point and where to go from here.

We have all had mis­for­tunes, at­ro­cit­ies per­formed and re­ceived, our plights and our wars.  Why not look upon these struggles col­lect­ively, in­tel­lec­tu­ally and mor­ally so events such as the Holo­caust will nev­er hap­pen again?

Any­one who wishes to know more about the sub­ject could al­most cer­tainly find a col­lege that of­fers more de­tails on such sub­jects or per­haps they could read one of Mr. Wies­el’s books on their own.

Le­onard T. Roberts

May­fair

Ne­ces­sary deadly force by Phil­adelphia po­lice

Phil­adelphia Po­lice Com­mis­sion­er Charles Ram­sey is call­ing for an in­vest­ig­a­tion of the in­creas­ing use of deadly force by po­lice of­ficers.

The job of a po­lice of­ficer is plain and simple: to en­force the law.  They are not out there to be pub­lic re­la­tions ex­ec­ut­ives or good will am­bas­sad­ors.  

They are there to keep the pub­lic safe from the crim­in­al garbage who mas­quer­ade as hu­man be­ings. 

And since so­ci­ety has cre­ated fa­vor­able con­di­tions for this garbage to breed; lack of dis­cip­line at home and in the schools, con­tinu­ous pub­lic as­sist­ance for those who have no am­bi­tion or de­sire to bet­ter them­selves and dis­guising bad, un­ac­cept­able be­ha­vi­or with stu­pid terms such as neg­at­ive at­ten­tion-seek­ing and cre­at­ive ex­pres­sion, the po­lice have had to deal with them on a more fre­quent basis.

So why are some people sur­prised that po­lice of­ficers have in­creas­ingly had to use deadly force to stop crim­in­als who would just as soon kill that of­ficer or any­one else who got in their way?  

What is an of­ficer sup­posed to do when a gun is poin­ted at them? Give the per­pet­rat­or a timeout? Or maybe try to dis­cuss with them why this ac­tion is wrong and will forever change their life?  

When some mor­on is stu­pid enough to point a gun at a po­lice of­ficer after be­ing ordered to drop it, of­ficers have two choices — die or stay alive and make it home to their fam­il­ies at the end of the day. 

There is no reas­on for an in­vest­ig­a­tion as to the in­creas­ing use of deadly force by the po­lice. The in­vest­ig­a­tion should be: Why are there so many people out there who ne­ces­sit­ate the need for deadly force?

The bright side to the in­creas­ing use of deadly force by the po­lice is that when one crim­in­al is elim­in­ated, you’ve rendered that in­di­vidu­al in­cap­able of pro­cre­at­ing more crim­in­als.  

Peter Di­Gi­useppe

Rhawn­hurst

He thinks Mar­garet Ad­els­ber­ger is right 

Mar­garet W. Ad­els­ber­ger has got it so right. I’m a middle-aged white guy from Philly, pero yo hablo es­pan­ol, estudi&ea­cute; en es­cuela se­gundario por quatro anos (but I speak Span­ish, I stud­ied in high school for four years). 

I have many Latino friends.  I took the time to study and learn Span­ish, as should any­one en­ter­ing this coun­try learn Eng­lish. It’s the ba­sic rite of pas­sage: enter leg­ally, pledge your al­le­gi­ance to the flag of the USA, learn Eng­lish, work hard and fol­low the laws of our land. Sharia shall not ap­ply here. Do the right thing and this great coun­try will con­tin­ue to thrive and have the abil­ity to con­tin­ue to wel­come more fine in­di­vidu­als!

Steve Garvin

Castor Gar­dens

Griev­ing par­ents de­serve work leave

I was not look­ing for­ward to Fath­er’s Day be­cause I am a griev­ing dad. Just writ­ing those hor­rif­ic words causes me to pause and think about how dif­fi­cult this jour­ney has been and will con­tin­ue to be for some time. I lost my son, Timothy, in 2011 and have spent the past two years try­ing to sur­vive this loss. As much as a try, I can­not make sense of my son’s death.

You see, most people think that be­reaved par­ents should pick them­selves up, dust them­selves off and get things back to “nor­mal.” When I say “most people,” I mean people who have not bur­ied a child. Those of us un­for­tu­nate enough to have to live this real­ity know it isn’t quite that simple. I and the thou­sands of oth­er griev­ing par­ents will nev­er get back to “nor­mal,” al­though we try. Try­ing to get back to “nor­mal” is a noble cause that nev­er seems to hap­pen after the death of a child. How can it? The death of a child goes bey­ond most people’s com­pre­hen­sion, ex­cept for the be­reaved par­ents that have to walk this path. We don’t have the lux­ury of re­mov­ing that thought from our heads, we live it. Every day, we live it.

As part of my voice to help oth­er be­reaved par­ents who will fol­low in my foot­steps, I have joined fel­low griev­ing dads, Kelly Far­ley and Barry Kluger, to as­sist them with bring­ing aware­ness to the Far­ley-Kluger Ini­ti­at­ive (www.Far­leyKluger.com). More than 61,000 pe­ti­tions have already been sent to Wash­ing­ton, D.C. Many of these pe­ti­tions have been signed by res­id­ents of Pennsylvania.

Cur­rently, there are two fed­er­al bills (The Par­ent­al Be­reave­ment Act of 2013) sit­ting in the House of Rep­res­ent­at­ives (HR 515) and the Sen­ate (S 226) that pro­pose ex­pand­ing the Fam­ily Med­ic­al Leave Act of 1993 to in­clude the death of a child as a covered con­di­tion. Right now, you re­ceive up to 12 weeks un­paid leave if you have a child, ad­opt a child, care for a sick fam­ily mem­ber, you are ill or you are caring for an in­jured ser­vice mem­ber. If your child dies, most com­pan­ies grant three to five days be­reave­ment leave.

Sadly, there is no polit­ic­al sup­port from Pennsylvania rep­res­ent­at­ives or sen­at­ors in Wash­ing­ton on this is­sue. As Pennsylvani­ans, I know we can do bet­ter. I know com­pas­sion isn’t a thing of the past. This is­sue shouldn’t be caught up in Wash­ing­ton polit­ics. It’s a com­mon sense change since no par­ent is sheltered from the death of a child, and those af­fected are Demo­crats, Re­pub­lic­ans, rich, poor, as well as all cul­tur­al and re­li­gious back­grounds.

I think we can all agree that no one wants more gov­ern­ment in their lives, but we want the busi­nesses that rely on those who have lost a child, to re­cog­nize that the best as­sets of a com­pany walk out the door at the end of the work day. They are what makes the eco­nomy move along. They have giv­en their em­ploy­ers loy­alty, ded­ic­a­tion and pro­ductiv­ity but in the eyes of some com­pan­ies, the death of a child makes them “ex­pend­able” if they are un­able to re­turn to work the day after bury­ing their child.

I can­not be­gin to ima­gine why any­one would not want to ex­tend a com­pas­sion­ate hand to those who have lost a child. Have we really be­come a coun­try that is fo­cused more on the bot­tom line than help­ing our neigh­bors through dif­fi­cult times?

Mar­tin Con­nors

Port Rich­mond

You can reach at .

comments powered by Disqus