Please visit our kind sponsors
EMPLOY THE OLDER WORKER WEEK
WHEREAS, The experience of mature adults and the innovation of youth remain equally valued and utilized in Pennsylvania. All of our citizens, each in their own way, contribute to the productivity, diversity, and prosperity of our Commonwealth; and
WHEREAS, our older citizens are an active and essential part of our communities and workforce. Older workers bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to their jobs and demonstrate critical skills, excellent leadership, and an unrivaled work ethic; and
WHEREAS, putting the diverse abilities of older employees to work is a sound economic investment in Pennsylvania's businesses and industry. Workers over 50 have proven to be among the most productive and efficient, loyal, and responsible employees, exhibiting a lower rate of turnover and absenteeism; and
WHEREAS, the Pennsylvania Department of Aging and the Department of Labor and Industry are committed to promoting the benefits of employing older workers and are continuing efforts to inform employers about the skills, experience, and professionalism that older Pennsylvanians have to offer.
THEREFORE, In recognition of the important role older Pennsylvanians play in our workforce, I, Edward G. Rendell, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, do hereby proclaim September 21-27, 2003 as EMPLOY THE OLDER WORKER WEEK throughout the Commonwealth. I encourage employers and workers of all ages to recognize the many ways in which older employees contribute to a successful working environment and Commonwealth.
GIVEN under my hand and the Seal of the Governor, at the City of Harrisburg, on this eleventh day of July in the year of our Lord two thousand and three, and of the Commonwealth the two hundred and twenty-eighth.
EDWARD G. RENDELL
It Is Unconscionable
Far from being wishy-washy politicians who would say what they thought the public wanted to hear, the Founding Fathers were men of integrity and principle. The 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence took enormous personal risks to affix their names to this great document. The penalty for treason was death, and each man suffered for his signature. The last line of the Declaration says it clearly: "And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
So, when, in their own words, many affirmed their faith in God and claimed it as a foundation for their new country, I believe it. That they were credible is unquestionable. That they were faithful is undeniable. That they loved God is irrefutable. That they built our country on His principles is indisputable. That some would strive to remove the mention of their God from public places is unconscionable.
I will say no more.
New Milford, PA
Easy On Those Generalities
Twenty-some years ago, when I registered to vote I had to make the decision whether to be registered as a democrat or a republican. As a youth and still to this day, I saw two parties wanting to do the same things but both took different routes to accomplish them. I chose the Republican Party. I know that there is hypocrisy, corruption, and plain old fashioned evil in both parties, but a two-party system is necessary for a checks and balance system to operate.
In the June 25, 2003 edition in "To the editor" under "Class warfare," I read these words, "While were at it, lets give more scriptural advice for greedy, selfish republicans." Because I am a registered republican, I am greedy and selfish? The rest of the letter goes further and tells me that I am rich and that I suppress the poor because I am a republican! I am offended by these generalizations, and it is from this type of thinking that such things as racism are spawned.
My mother was a homemaker that stayed at home to take care of her five children. My father worked in an iron foundry for thirty-some years. Having the American Dream, they started a small business. My father went to work at the foundry at four in the morning, came home after his eight-hour shift, had lunch and then both of them went to work at their business from one to eight p.m. The foundry has since closed, and my mother and father, now in their mid-sixties, have cut back their work week to a mere 60 hours. Even though they worked long, hard hours, they made sure that they attended to their childrens needs (religious, academics, and athletics). By the way, they are registered republicans, too.
I graduated from college, got married, and have three great children. I worked as a sales representative for a wholesaler for about ten years when I struck off on my own. I purchased a small retail store. The first years were very difficult, seventy to eighty hours a week and many prayers to God. Now after fourteen years, things are getting better. Now I only work 45 to 50 hours a week and I only have to work two Sundays a month. I have a mortgage payment each month. I have ten wonderful employees that help me keep the store stocked and take care of our customers needs. I try to help any charity or benefit that comes through my door. I am not rich, greedy, or selfish! It really frosts me when someone makes such a generality.
I hope that most intelligent people know that whether you are a democrat or a republican means nothing, but rather what you are and what you do are the important things in life.
Dan Glezen, Jr.
Who Is The "We"?
Have you ever wondered why we are fighting in Iraq? Did you do anything to them? Did they do anything to you? Or, is it the politicians and large companies and corporations (oil) that are concerned? Dont go for that World Trade Center story, that Iraq was behind it. Then why is the war in Pakistan going on? Those politicians all have interests in these countries, and increase their wealth over there. Then they ask us little, poor people to fight and give our lives, for them. I say, ask the rich, wealthy corporate owners and politicians to give up their assets, to help pay for the damage they did; come down to our level, to see what we are going through.
Do you people think George W. Bush is compassionate? Well, it goes back to his father, and his father, etc., in the oil business. Again, I say, ask them to give up and sacrifice their assets and their wealth, and see what they say.
If it was up to me, I would give each one of them a lie detector test; we could see for ourselves who is telling the truth; but then again, even the test would be rigged to their advantage.
God Bless America! Even that statement includes Canada, Mexico, South America, Central America, etc. What are our children being taught in school about this?
Well, not in my lifetime but after Bush is gone, maybe forty or fifty years from now, we will learn the truth, when its too late, like all the other things in history.
The politicians preach that "we" are doing a great job over there. Who is the "we"? Not them! Its us. Change that statement to "you small people are doing a good job over there!"
The money they raise to be reelected should be turned in to pay the bill, not used for their advantage.
Great Bend, PA
RE: P. Jays Column "Along The Way"
I dont know how or why you have developed such a negative opinion of Joey Franks. According to Joey, he has never met you or talked with you. Ive talked to a number of people who felt that your August 20 column on Joey went over the edge, being nothing more than a public ripping of Joey. I realize that your column is your opinion and most people should view it as only that. The Transcript makes sure to tell us that all opinions in the letters to the editor are not necessarily those of the management. Maybe your column should have the same disclaimer, since I assume you are compensated by the paper. In any case, this specific column smacked more of yellow journalism than of professionalism.
Filled with innuendoes and no facts, you merely used your column as a forum to defame Joeys character (sounds awfully similar to political mudslinging, huh?).
I dont know what your motivation may have been other than your ties with the previous Democratic leadership, but if you have all the answers for the Democratic party, why dont you detail them in an article one day. I would think that if you want to use politics as your theme, do some good and dissect the issues in this election season, not the politicians. By the way, I am a Republican so I have no vested interest in the Democratic leadership.
Also, if you had taken the time to meet Joey, you may have found out he cares about his community and yes, he does love hot dogs, but after reading your column, I think you are one.
Separation Of Church And State?
Recently I have been hearing that we must maintain, stand behind, and respect our constitution, which states that we have to have a separation of church and state. A few people have written to this fine newspaper, stating that by law there has to be a separation of church and state.
That means no Christmas display on the courthouse lawn, no ten commandments in an Alabama courthouse, no "One nation under God" are allowed. This makes me wonder if all religious rules and displays must be removed from our "government" to maintain a separation? In the Christian bible it states, "Thou shalt not kill" (Deut. 5:17), it also states, "Neither shalt thou steal" (Deut. 5:19). These are "church" rules and according to our constitution we have to maintain a separation of "church and state." I was very concerned about this and wondered why our founding fathers (most of whom had strong Christian roots) would have worded our great constitution in this manner. So I got a copy of our constitution.
Amendments to the Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I read it many times looking for the word separation. It is not there! "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This means that congress (the state) cannot make a law that favors one or any religion nor oppresses one or any religion. As history teaches us, our country was founded by people who were fleeing from such conditions. Our forefathers designed a country where the majority ruled, but at the same time, did not oppress the minorities, so that all people can worship freely on private, public, state and federal properties. The second line of the first amendment says just that Congress cannot make a law "prohibiting the free exercise" of anyones religion. That means that a Christian group can put up a Christmas display on the courthouse lawn. It also means that any other religious group can set up their religious display on the courthouse lawn. The only time the constitution is broken is when the government tells someone that they cant "peaceably assemble" to show respect to their god! This total disregard of our constitution seems to be what is occurring all over our great country today.
Why have we been misinformed about the first amendment? The word separation is not in it! It is not there because it cant be; our countrys laws are founded on Christian laws. If we separate them there will be total anarchy. Mans laws are very simple. It is survival of the fittest or the strongest. I truly hope that we dont go to that.
Dan Glezen, Jr.
TO THE EDITOR POLICY
Thank you, Susquehanna County Transcript
For questions, comments and
submissions contact us at:
News | Living | Sports | Schools | Churches | Ads | Events
Military | Columns | Ed/Op | Obits | Archive | Subscribe