| |
| COLUMNISTS |
|
Business Directory Now Online!!!
Please visit our kind sponsors |
|
||||||
|
COLUMNS: FOREST CITY: Mr. and Mrs. Cecil C. Manzer were visitors the first of the week. In making a jump from the western part of the state to Philadelphia, to fill a theatrical engagement, they had a three day “open date” and took advantage of the time to visit the former’s father, T. C. Manzer. Cecil has made a hit on the vaudeville stage and after a long run in the Keith theatre in New York City, has had engagements at some of the principal theatres throughout the middle and eastern states. DIMOCK: One of the most serious wrecks occurring on the Montrose Branch of the Lehigh Valley, in many years, occurred last Tuesday afternoon when the engine drawing the train coming from Tunkhannock to Montrose, left the rails when on the sharp curve between Dimock and Woodbourne, somersaulting down a steep embankment 30 feet. The train was proceeding at a slow rate of speed when, without warning, the engine left the rails, shooting straight ahead, followed by the tender, and now lays upside down with the big driving wheels standing straight in the air, as evidence of its wild escapade. The only person injured was the engineer who, besides other injuries, was burned terribly on both limbs from knees down. The engineer’s name is John Barber and lives at Sayre. Word was received yesterday from the Sayre Hospital that Mr. Barber would live, and the fact is causing universal rejoicing among those who know him. He is a big fellow, weighing over 200 lbs., and is affable and cordial with all acquaintances. He has a wife and four small children. NIVEN: Charles McKeeby, a farmer of this place, was drowned in the Tunkhannock creek near Nicholson, on March 23. His horse and buggy were found near Henry Rought’s barn on Friday morning, but how he came to be drowned is a mystery. It is supposed that Mr. McKeeby lost his way, it being a very dark night and while turning around to take another road, overturned the wagon while getting the horse down, and immediately started out for help. While crossing the bridge at the foot of Robert’s hill, near Nicholson, he walked off the bridge. His death has cast a gloom over this community, as he was an obliging neighbor and a kind husband and father to Ira, Fred and Lena. Interment was made at Elk Lake. CHOCONUT VALLEY: The schools in this township have mostly closed. James Hawley, teacher of the Golden school, closed March 16; Mary Dunn, teacher of the Chalker school, closed March 18; and Miss Dunn has gone to Philadelphia for the summer. Miss Susie Murphy, teacher of the Donley school, closed March 25. FOWLER HILL: The Pine Glenn school house burned down Wednesday. ALFORD: The F. J. Sickler stone quarry, leased by Shoemaker and McCloe, was the scene of a bad accident on Wednesday of last week, when two men were badly injured by the premature explosion of a charge of dynamite. C. McCloe was seriously injured about the head, and it was believed that his eyesight was entirely destroyed. The man was taken to the State Hospital at Scranton, where he is recovering and it is hoped will regain his sight. Mr. Shoemaker was cut and bruised about the head and had a narrow escape from death. HALLSTEAD: The W. M. Knoeller & Co. store building was burned on Wednesday night of last week, the loss being estimated at about $8,000. The goods burned included hardware, building supplies, lumber, feed, baled hay, etc. There was an insurance on stock and building of $6,000. The origin of the fire is unknown. ALSO, M. S. Lamb, formerly of Hallstead, is the new proprietor of the Montrose steam laundry. He intends to come from Cuba about the middle of April and with his family will take up his residence in Montrose. Mr. Lamb has been engineer of a Cuban railroad but the climate does not agree with him, and he is anxious to return north and thinks he can get the right kind [of weather] in our mountain town. W. J. McLeod, of Fairdale is presently in charge of the laundry. CLIFFORD: Ed. Hutchings was quite painfully injured by a kick from a horse that could not be made to kick. LINDAVILLE, BROOKLYN TWP.: Spring is in the air, but oh, the blizzards we have been blessed with. SOUTH GIBSON: Dan Everson will occupy the storeroom in the Cameron building for a harness and shoemaking establishment. NEW MILFORD: P. H. Comstock has sold out his bakery and restaurant business to a party from Rome, N.Y. SPRINGVILLE: It is with much regret that friends in this place learned of the accident which happened to Miss Winifred Smales, a student at Mansfield, some time since, by which her eyes were quite seriously burned. It was caused by an explosion in the laboratory during work in that room. It is hoped she may soon recover from its effects. LITTLE MEADOWS: Rev. Fr. J. J. O’Malley, for many years the faithful pastor of St. Thomas Aquinas’ church, has been transferred to the parish at Plains, PA. MONTROSE: Announcement is made by the proprietor of the Cnic Theatre, Frank Caruso, that hereafter 10 cents admission will be charged. This change is made because there is generally a financial loss at five cents, and especially in winter when patronage is small. The ten cent programs will consist of 4 reels of the very best pictures and there will be good music. Mr. Caruso, in thanking the pubic for past patronage, promises to give a good big ten cents worth for the spring and summer months, and solicits a continuance of the patronage so cheerfully given in the past. NEWS BRIEF: One hundred and forty-five persons, most of them women and young girls, were killed in a fire which gutted the ten story building in New York City, at the northwest corner of Washington Place and Greene Street, just a block east of Washington Square. The dead were all employees of the Triangle Waist company. The women and girl machine operators jumped from the eighth, ninth and tenth or top floor in groups of twos and threes into life nets, and their bodies spun downward from the high windows of the building so close together that the few life nets stretched below soon were broken. Others fell to their deaths in the elevator shaft or never made it out of the building. There was one interior fire escape. A commission has been appointed to investigate the cause and fix the blame of the fire.
From the Desk of the D.A. I received a comment on the blog site seeking clarification as to whether it is lawful for a person to carry a firearm openly without a permit. Whenever people ask me this question, the first thing that pops into my mind is an image of Clint Eastwood with a ratty cigar clenched between his teeth, a dusty poncho slung over the left shoulder, and his right hand quivering near a holstered pistol tensed to draw and start firing. I suspect that the person making the inquiry is thinking of something a little less dramatic - perhaps a simple side holster similar to those worn by law enforcement officers. The first question would be whether or not you can lawfully even possess the firearm in any fashion. This is not always a simple question. Under Pennsylvania law, there are certain enumerated offenses that result in the prohibition against future ownership of firearms. It is pretty simple to go through the list to figure out whether you are eligible to own a firearm. Federal law is not so clear cut. Several years ago, I did a trial involving the theft of some rifles from a personal residence. After conclusion of the trial, the elderly gentleman who owned the rifles went to the State Police to get the rifles back. When the State Police ran a background check, there was an old income tax conviction on his record - and the State Police refused to release the rifles to the victim. In the end, the victim had to make out a bill of sale and give the rifles to a relative before they could be released back to the family. Under federal law, any conviction for a felony offense results in a disqualification from the possession and ownership of firearms. The problem is that “felony” offense under federal law does not necessarily mean “felony offense” under state law. Some of the misdemeanor offenses in Pennsylvania would qualify as a “felony” offense under federal law. For instance, any theft offense involving more than $200 would result in a defendant being disqualified from firearm possession - as would most second DUI offenses. I cannot begin to guess how many of our DUI offenders are technically ineligible under federal law to possess or own a firearm, but they still hunt, shoot and do most everything they used to do prior to the DUI convictions. Further, federal law also has certain other prohibitions that eliminate the ability to possess a firearm. If you have an active protective order issued against you, then federal law will not allow you to possess a firearm - even where the parties agree that there is no need to have a firearm prohibition. Federal law also makes it unlawful to own or possess a firearm if you have ever been convicted of any misdemeanor offense involving domestic violence - even if the domestic incident did not involve firearms. So, you can see that the question about carrying a firearm is far harder to answer than most people would believe. Another point that should be made: it is unlawful for a person under 18 to possess a handgun. If you are under 18, you cannot possess or transport a handgun except when in the company of your parent (or guardian) and you are engaged in certain lawful purposes defined by the statute, i.e., target practice, shooting competitions, hunting or similar activities. For those 17 year olds out there that want to walk around town with a pistol strapped to their side I can only recommend the same advice Johnny Cash once gave: Don’t take your guns to town, son, leave your guns at home, Bill, don’t take your guns to town. The other problem with the open carry question is that it fails to recognize that there is more to open carrying than simply sauntering down the street like Wyatt Earp on his way to the O.K. Corral. Provided you can lawfully own a firearm, it is certainly lawful to openly display a firearm at your side where everyone can see it. On the other hand, if you jump into your motor vehicle with the loaded firearm, then the rules change and you get into a whole new situation with a bunch of different rules. The weapon becomes concealed when you enter the motor vehicle, i.e. the public can no longer see that you are carrying a weapon as you drive around town. If you do not have a carry permit, this could result in criminal charges. There are also rules regarding how firearms can be transported - and generally they cannot be loaded while being transported - unless you have a concealed carry permit. So the question about “open carry” is a hard one to answer - there are so many rules and regulations surrounding firearms possession, usage and transportation that it is a far better idea to get a permit for the handgun if you feel the need to carry it on your person wherever you go. If you do not have a permit, it does not take much to get yourself into a situation where you are violating the law without even knowing it. Please submit any questions, concerns, or comments to Susquehanna County District Attorney’s Office, P.O. Box 218, Montrose, Pennsylvania 18801 or at our website www.SusquehannaCounty-DA.org or discuss this and all articles at http://dadesk.blogspot.com/.
The Healthy Geezer Q. Is breast cancer the leading cause of cancer death in women? Breast cancer is second - behind lung cancer - as the leading cause of cancer death in women. The chance of developing invasive breast cancer at some time in a woman's life is about 1 in 8. There are many risk factors for breast cancer. The risk rises with age. About 77% of women with breast cancer are older than 50 when they are diagnosed. Breast cancer risk is higher among women whose close relatives have the disease. A woman with cancer in one breast is at high risk of developing a new cancer in either of her breasts. Women who started menstruating before age 12 or who went through menopause after age 55 have a slightly higher risk of breast cancer. Having multiple pregnancies and becoming pregnant at an early age reduces breast cancer risk. Long-term use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) after menopause increases your risk of breast cancer. Drinking alcohol is linked to an increased risk of developing breast cancer. Obesity is a breast cancer risk, especially for women after menopause. Evidence is growing that exercise reduces breast cancer risk. Breast cancer can also strike men. Most men who get breast cancer are white and in their sixties. However, the disease is uncommon in men. It represents only 1% of all breast cancers. Because of its rarity, many men aren’t aware it exists. And that’s a problem. For unknown reasons, the incidence of male breast cancer has been increasing. About 2,000 men in the U.S. are diagnosed with breast cancer annually. Some risk factors for male breast cancer are: Age. The average age for a man diagnosed with breast cancer is 67. Family. About 20 percent of men with breast cancer are related to someone with the disease. Genes. About 7 percent of breast cancers in men are inherited. Radiation. There’s a higher risk to men who underwent chest radiation treatments when they were younger. Klinefelter Syndrome. Men with this syndrome make lower levels of male hormones - androgens - and more female hormones. This can cause gynecomastia, benign breast enlargement. Men with this condition may be at greater risk of breast cancer. Many medicines used to treat ulcers, high blood pressure, and heart failure can cause gynecomastia, too. Estrogen. The risk is small for men who take estrogen - the main female hormone. Estrogen drugs may be used to treat prostate cancer. Liver disease. This can increase your risk of gynecomastia and breast cancer. Obesity. Fat cells convert androgens into estrogen. Alcohol. Drinking alcohol raises the odds that a man will develop breast cancer. The risk increases with the amount of alcohol consumed. If you have a question, please write to fred@healthygeezer.com.
Library Chitchat No Library Chitchat This Week
Rock Doc No Rock Doc This Week
EARTH TALK Dear EarthTalk: Recent news reports have revealed the discovery of previously unknown species inhabiting the deepest parts of our oceans. Is anything being done to protect this habitat before humans have a chance to fish it to death or otherwise destroy it? ~Matthew Unfortunately it may already be too late for some of the deep sea’s undiscovered life forms. Advances in so-called “bottom trawling” technology in recent years has meant that fishing boats now have unprecedented access to deep ocean habitats and the sea floor itself where untold numbers of unknown species have been making a living for eons. Scientists speculate that upwards of 10 million different species may inhabit the deep sea. This is biodiversity comparable to the world’s richest tropical rainforests. The Deep Sea Conservation Coalition (DSCC), a group of more than 50 environmental and other groups dedicated to protecting cold-water corals and vulnerable deep-sea ecosystems, reports that trawlers today are capable of fishing deep sea canyons and rough seafloors that were once avoided for fear of damaging nets. “To capture one or two target commercial species, deep-sea bottom trawl fishing vessels drag huge nets armed with steel plates and heavy rollers across the seabed, plowing up and pulverizing everything in their path,” the coalition reports. In addition, adds DSCC, large quantities of coral and unwanted fish species are hauled up only to be thrown back dead or dying. Indeed, the result of a few hours of trawling can be the destruction of fragile deep-sea habitats, such as delicate coral and sponge communities, that may have taken centuries to grow and thrive. Bottom trawling also stirs up the sediment at the bottom of the sea. The resulting undersea plumes of “suspended solids” can drift with the current for tens of miles from the source of the trawling, introducing turbidity throughout the water that inhibits the transfer of light down to the depths where it is needed for photosynthesis in plankton, sea kelp and other undersea plants that serve as the basis for the marine food chain. Also, ocean sediments serve as natural safe resting places for many persistent organic pollutants (such as DDT and PCBs). Dredging these sediments up effectively reintroduces such toxins into the water where they are unwittingly absorbed and consumed by the fish we eat and other marine life already trying to cope with otherwise compromised undersea habitats. The sediment plumes also reintroduce nutrient solids from agricultural and other practices, increasing demand for oxygen in the water (causing algae blooms) and contributing to the outbreak of ocean “dead zones” devoid of marine life. What can be done? For its part, the United States has banned bottom trawling in its offshore jurisdictions, but the practice continues mostly unabated throughout Europe and out on the world’s high seas. DSCC has gotten upwards of 1,400 marine scientists from 69 different countries to sign onto a statement expressing profound concern “that human activities, particularly bottom trawling, are causing unprecedented damage to the deep-sea coral and sponge communities on continental plateaus and slopes, and on seamounts and mid-ocean ridges.” The statement calls on governments and the United Nations to adopt a short-term global moratorium on deep sea bottom trawling to try to provide immediate protection to the mostly undiscovered biodiversity of deep sea ecosystems while governments hash out longer term conservation and management regimes. In the meantime, bottom trawling continues unabated in sensitive areas of the North Atlantic and elsewhere, harvesting now for us what our grandchildren may never know. Dear EarthTalk: The World Bank is often cast in a bad light by green groups and in the press. What are their eco-crimes, and are there any reforms in the making? ~J. Bloch Originally created to finance the rebuilding of Europe after World War II, the World Bank later took on a larger mandate to try to alleviate poverty around the world. Unfortunately, many of the Bank’s policies and practices in intervening years clashed with conservation priorities. But the more recent onslaught of global warming threats, along with greater overall public environmental awareness, has forced the World Bank to factor sustainability concerns into how it encourages development moving forward. According to the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), a non-profit think tank, the World Bank has been widely criticized for funding a series of environmentally damaging projects in the 1980s, including the building of dams on the Narmada River in India, road building into the Brazilian Amazon and transmigration (re-settlement) efforts in Indonesia. “These projects have led to a variety of adverse impacts in borrower countries, including deforestation and displacement of indigenous peoples,” reports the group. In response to the criticism, the World Bank adopted a set of policies and procedures in the late 1980s to better assess the potential adverse environmental impacts of its projects. The Bank further developed a series of polices to guide investment in such areas as forestry and energy. “For example, the bank’s forestry policy prohibits the institution from financing logging in primary tropical forests,” adds IPS. Other highlights of the Bank’s first round of greening included the creation of a special unit to oversee environmentally and socially sustainable development, and the recruitment of staff with technical environmental credentials to supplement its professional core of economists. IPS reports that with these changes in place, the bank has been able to start developing a portfolio of environment-sector projects “ranging from support for national environmental agencies to investments in national parks.” But an independent internal review of the World Bank’s sustainability impacts between 1990 and 2007 found that even these new sustainability-oriented policies fell flat. Researchers found that the bank’s private-sector funding arm, the International Finance Corporation, was still promoting the expansion of livestock herds, soybean fields and palm oil plantations - all which accelerated deforestation in the tropics, hastening the pace of climate change for the rest of us. “They need to begin to see the inextricable link between sustaining environment and reducing poverty,” said Vinod Thomas, director of the World Bank group that performed the review. “It is clear now from the Amazon to India that if environmental sustainability is not raised as a priority, then all bets are off.” The World Bank tried to address many of these concerns with the release of a beefed up Environment Strategy in 2001, but analysts remain critical of the organization’s performance and general commitment to sustainability. In June 2011 the World Bank will release a new Environment Strategy which it will use as a sustainability roadmap for its projects over the coming decade. The focus of the Bank’s sustainability work will be mitigating climate change through the promotion of clean energy technologies. EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com.
Barnes-Kasson Corner No Barnes-Kasson Corner This Week
News
|
Living
|
Sports
|
Schools
|
Churches
|
Ads
|
Events
Military | Columns | Ed/Op | Obits | Archive | Subscribe © |
|||||||
