Letters to the Editor (May 22, 2013)

Keep tax dol­lars in pub­lic schools

My daugh­ter has been tak­ing vi­ol­in les­sons since kinder­garten. She is very proud of how much pro­gress she has made with the vi­ol­in and all of the songs she learned to play on it.

We as a fam­ily love to hear her prac­tice and we are amazed at how well she can play songs on it. She and her best friend like to play songs in a small con­cert for us at hol­i­days and oth­er gath­er­ings.

I be­lieve that mu­sic has a sub­stan­tial ef­fect on her school per­form­ance. She is per­form­ing at her grade level, and I would like to see her levels stay that way.

My daugh­ter is also in the Wat­son Comly Ele­ment­ary School Choir. She loves to sing and learn new songs. Her dream is to be able to at­tend Arts Academy at Ben­jamin Rush when she is in high school.

Without mu­sic in­struc­tion from the teach­ers at Comly, this will be a dif­fi­cult task to ac­com­plish. She came home from school one day re­cently talk­ing about the tal­ent show that her school had. She said it was awe­some and told me about all of the acts that she saw. That is due to the in­struc­tion that hap­pens at Comly every day in their mu­sic/arts pro­gram.

I choose to send my chil­dren to pub­lic schools in­stead of private/Cath­ol­ic. I have turned down a charter for my son so that he can go to the Arts Academy at Ben­jamin Rush. I be­lieve all fund­ing for schools should go to the Phil­adelphia pub­lic schools. I pay some of the highest taxes in the city due to where I live. I think I should have a say as to how my money is spent. I want my tax dol­lars to stay in my com­munity/pub­lic schools.

Di­anna Rud­er­ick

Teach­er and con­cerned par­ent

This pic­ture was taken 100 years ago this month at Ce­dar Hill Cemetery, at 5800 Frank­ford Ave.

It is a group of very young men in uni­form. My grand­fath­er, Rudolph Moeller, is on the top row, fourth from the left, at age 18.

Un­for­tu­nately, I haven’t been able to find out the back­ground of this “O.I.A. Leut. Cush­ing Nav­al Guards #839.” I’ve in­quired at a VFW post and on Google to no avail.

Per­haps put­ting the pic­ture in the pa­per will gen­er­ate a re­sponse from some oth­er grand­child who has the same pic­ture and knows more than I do.

Per­haps they were just some young men who dressed up ap­prox­im­ately 50 years after Cush­ing’s death to hon­or this amaz­ing brave lieu­ten­ant who died at the age of 22 at the Battle of Gettys­burg on Ju­ly 3, 1863.

Car­ol Hart

Fox Chase

Bash­ing Rom­ney, San­tor­um and Bush

I read Jim Laverty’s charges against Pres­id­ent Obama in his let­ter in the May 8 North­east Times, and some of them are true. The Obama cam­paign did in­deed cite Mitt Rom­ney’s new el­ev­at­or (for his cars), but that was in re­sponse to Rom­ney’s try­ing to por­tray Obama as an out-of-touch elit­ist who spent too much time at Har­vard, some­how un­like four-home, quarter-bil­lion­aire Rom­ney him­self, he of the two Har­vard de­grees.

I com­mend the Re­pub­lic­ans. Wealthy people — and I am all in fa­vor of wealth — are gen­er­ally Re­pub­lic­ans, but some­how the GOP man­ages to la­bel Demo­crats as elit­ists, and get away with it. Every pres­id­ent takes va­ca­tions, with trans­port­a­tion and se­cur­ity on the tax­pay­ers’ dime. They are work­ing va­ca­tions. 

Un­for­tu­nately for us, “work­ing” for George W. Bush meant clear­ing brush at his ranch, in­stead of pay­ing at­ten­tion to his na­tion­al se­cur­ity briefs, like the one on Aug. 6, 2001, titled “Bin Lad­in De­term­ined To Strike in US.” 

And don’t for­get to thank W. for giv­ing us a de­fi­cit.

Howard J. Wilk

Pine Val­ley

No need for auto­mat­ic weapons in homes

Mr. Arce (March 13 let­ter, How to de­fend self from gun vi­ol­ence), I really ap­pre­ci­ate your ser­vice to your coun­try. Your mil­it­ary ex­per­i­ence however, does not trans­late in­to life as a ci­vil­ian.

Pre­par­ing to de­fend your fam­ily should not in­clude the use of auto­mat­ic weapons. You al­lude to an in­di­vidu­al break­ing in­to your home car­ry­ing auto­mat­ic weapons. Mr. Arce, when was the last time that happened in your home? Or on your street? Or in your town? 

The fact is you are ad­voc­at­ing auto­mat­ic weapons for every­body, with no thought to the con­sequences, for a threat that really doesn’t ex­ist. If you wish to have a gun in your home in or­der to pro­tect your fam­ily, I sup­port that de­cision. Just no auto­mat­ic weapons, please.

Joe Oren­stein


Gay couples can be good par­ents

Mr. Iac­on­elli, it’s hard to be­lieve you’re in the so­cial ser­vices and yet come out against equal­ity for two con­sent­ing adults to marry.

I, too, am in the so­cial ser­vices. I’ve seen first-hand how many chil­dren are without a fath­er in their lives. I’ve also seen the op­pos­ite side of that coin.

Many of the moth­ers are not in these kids’ lives either. I’ve also seen how many of them have no re­spons­ible par­ent­al/guid­ing adult fig­ure in their lives.

It sounds as if part of your gripe is that some­how “gay” mar­riage will di­lute some per­ceived sanc­tity of this “tra­di­tion­al” mar­riage of which you speak.

You might want to do a bit of re­search on the ori­gins of mar­riage. Wo­men were bartered for in ex­change for goods and helped make time for the men to tend to the ag­ri­cul­ture.

If it is the Bible you are al­lud­ing to, mar­riages were poly­gam­ous (1Chron. 3:1-9), between fam­ily mem­bers (Gen 20:12) and com­manded vir­gin rape vic­tims to marry their rap­ists (Deut. 22:28-29).

Tra­di­tions have a way of chan­ging, es­pe­cially when those tra­di­tions might in­fringe upon the rights of oth­ers.

Two men or two wo­men be­ing gran­ted the same rights and priv­ileges of mar­riage will in no way af­fect you, chil­dren or the mar­riages of het­ero­sexu­als.

Keep­ing re­li­gion aside, re­mem­ber a thing called the Con­sti­tu­tion. It is life, liberty and the pur­suit of hap­pi­ness for all.

Also, see the equal pro­tec­tion clause in the 14th amend­ment.

Please also go to You­Tube and watch an ar­tic­u­late, well-roun­ded, re­spect­ful young gen­tle­man by the name of Za­ck Wahls tell you how his life has turned out after be­ing raised by two wo­men.

Mi­chael Al­ex­an­der


Richard, you’re not in the ’50s any­more 

Richard Iac­on­elli, I don’t know how old you are, but you need to leave the ’50s be­hind, sir.

Your ig­nor­ance and ho­mo­pho­bia come scream­ing from your last two let­ters to the

North­east Times. Tra­di­tion­al isn’t the same for every­one, so how about you go crawl back un­der that ho­mo­phobic rock you live un­der and let people live the way they want to live.

If a trans­gender bath­room scares you that much, how about you not use it. It’s just an op­tion for those who like op­tions.

Not everything in this world is black and white, cut and dry, Richard. Well, maybe for you, you need it to be.

God for­bid someone live, act or love dif­fer­ently than you do. Oh, the hor­ror. Grow up.

Heath­er Stein­berg


Il­leg­al im­mig­rants should be sent home

This is in ref­er­ence to the TV news re­port about the im­mig­rants who are in this coun­try il­leg­ally and may get cit­izen­ship. That’s a slap in the face to my fath­er who came by way of El­lis Is­land. He had to have a spon­sor who said he would have a place to stay, etc. When he got to El­lis Is­land, he was ex­amined. If he had a dis­ease, he would have been sent back. 

Give me a break. Sens. Men­en­dez and Mc­Cain should have their heads ex­amined. Who pays for these people if they get sick and go to the hos­pit­al and can’t be re­fused treat­ment? The cit­izens pay. These sen­at­ors don’t have a clue about what’s go­ing on. The only thing they are think­ing about is their salary, health be­ne­fits, va­ca­tion time and, of course, their pen­sion. They sure as hell don’t care about the people they rep­res­ent, who were born and raised in this coun­try, and who paid their share all along. 

With that said, these people are in the coun­try il­leg­ally. Isn’t this a crime? I think Mc­Cain and Men­en­dez should wake up and rep­res­ent the people of this coun­try. Send them the hell back and have them come back the prop­er way.

Wil­li­am Meinel


No tax­pay­er-fun­ded abor­tions 

As I traveled all across Pennsylvania in April, I heard count­less people tell me that they do not want tax­pay­er fund­ing of abor­tion.

It’s no sur­prise. Polls from CNN and Quin­nipi­ac show that a strong ma­jor­ity of Amer­ic­ans, in­clud­ing most wo­men, don’t want pub­lic money to be spent on abor­tion.

House Bill 818 is the will of the people in Pennsylvania. The bill would stop elect­ive abor­tion fund­ing in our state health in­sur­ance ex­change, which will be cre­ated by the Af­ford­able Care Act.

Un­less House Bill 818 passes, the Com­mon­wealth of Pennsylvania will be in the abor­tion busi­ness next year, re­vers­ing Pennsylvania’s long-stand­ing policy against pub­lic fund­ing of abor­tion.

Mi­cai­ah Bil­ger

Pennsylvania Pro-Life Fed­er­a­tion

Mod­er­ate ex­er­cise pro­duces great be­ne­fits

With the threat of ma­jor changes com­ing to the health­care sys­tem such as in­creas­ing premi­ums and co-pays on the ho­ri­zon for doc­tor’s vis­its and hos­pit­al stays, people should be do­ing whatever they can to try to stay healthy. This is es­pe­cially true of those over 40, since this is when all the bad habits of our youth tend to catch up with us.

Many think that be­com­ing fit re­quires spend­ing many mono­ton­ous, te­di­ous hours at a gym each week. The truth is that to look and feel great does not re­quire the many rig­or­ous and bor­ing hours in the gym that most people might think. As a mat­ter of fact, only eight ba­sic move­ments are needed to keep the body lean and healthy.

It is pure myth that you must con­stantly vary your ex­er­cise routine and add new moves to make the body re­spond.

Also, many of the ne­ces­sary move­ments may be done at home with a min­im­al amount of equip­ment. There are many oth­er things I’d rather be do­ing than spend­ing two to three hours four to five times a week with a bunch of sweaty, self-ab­sorbed people who can’t walk by a mir­ror without look­ing at them­selves. Most people can make a sig­ni­fic­ant dif­fer­ence in their health and ap­pear­ance by spend­ing as little as two to three hours per week ex­er­cising.

However, they must do the right things in the right or­der to reap the be­ne­fits of something that was pre­vi­ously thought gained only by spend­ing many hours at the gym.

Fancy, trendy routines are not needed, for they are just that, trendy, and are pushed on the pub­lic to sell a product or ser­vice. The trick is to stick with simple, ba­sic move­ments for each body part that in­volve mul­tiple muscle groups that will pro­mote the up­take of gluc­ose in­to the muscles, in­crease your meta­bol­ic rate and burn fat. The cor­rect or­der is legs, chest, back, shoulders and arms.

The stom­ach is worked last so as not to fa­tigue those muscles as they are needed for sta­bil­iz­a­tion while work­ing the oth­er parts.

The move­ments to be done are: leg press, chest press, back row, up­right row, shoulder press, bi­cep curl, tri­ceps ex­ten­sion or dip and stom­ach crunch. Two times a week would be suf­fi­cient to see im­prove­ment, al­though I usu­ally re­com­mend three times a week for be­gin­ners.

How the move­ments are done is the most im­port­ant thing of all. It’s not a mat­ter of simply throw­ing the weight up to com­plete the move­ment. Each move­ment should be a squeez­ing move­ment while in­tently fo­cus­ing on strict form and on con­tract­ing the muscles you are try­ing to work. It’s al­most like a form of med­it­a­tion. This is the only way res­ults will be achieved. Bal­list­ic move­ments not only won’t pro­duce res­ults but in­crease the risk of in­jury.

Res­ist­ance should be con­trolled while rais­ing and es­pe­cially on the lower­ing phase in which more muscle fibers are re­cruited and the most force is pro­duced.

The be­lief that if some ex­er­cise is good then much more has to be bet­ter is a fal­lacy. Many people overdo it. If muscles are trained ad­equately, tem­por­ary mi­cro-trauma on the muscle fibers en­sue. Noth­ing more can be done to those fibers un­til they re­pair. Over-train­ing can not only delay the re­cov­ery peri­od but may cause tem­por­ary or per­man­ent loss of muscle strength.

Sci­ence has now shown that in­stead of “No Pain, No Gain,” people should ad­opt the concept; “No Pain, Much Gain.”

Peter Di­Gi­useppe

Cer­ti­fied Fit­ness Train­er, Rhawn­hurst

comments powered by Disqus