Dr. Andrew Chichura has done an exemplary job as Superintendent of the Mountain View School District for over 15 years. The charges recently brought against him do not characterize his meticulous and caring work ethic.

Although a few school board and community members may not agree, Dr. Chichura has worked for our district in the same honorable and committed fashion as did Norman Mazza and Robert Klenk, former Mountain View administrators of the highest integrity.

I was very involved with the educational process at Mountain View when my children were students. During that period, under the guidance of Dr. Chichura, many much needed improvements were completed to enhance the construction of the consolidated high school that was built in 1959. These improvements include the building of the central elementary school, complete with one of the state's first wood burning furnaces, and major renovations to the high school. These projects were accomplished with minimal financial impact to the local taxpayers, mainly because of the financial expertise of Dr. Chichura.

Abraham Lincoln said that you can't please all of the people all of the time. A school superintendent's job can be a thankless one. So I thank Dr. Chichura for his time, his talents, his unstinting efforts, and the level of excellence that he has contributed to our school district.

Sincerely,

Sandra Wilmot

Clifford Township, PA

Just for the sake of argument, I'm conceding this one point to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. President Barack Hussein Obama Jr is indeed the “food stamps” President. In as much as Obama’s mother had to depend temporarily on food stamps, that man is per force the food stamps President.

If I may, I should like to turn attention towards those people, who like Obama’s mother have to depend on food stamps. I am sure that the former House Speaker would concur with me on this one point.

Their use of food stamps in no way makes them less human.

Now here’s a question, I would dearly love to hear the aforementioned former House Speaker answer. In fact, I would donate to his current presidential campaign my next month’s Social Security. Provided, of course, I’m afforded the opportunity to pose, in the full glare of the media, the following question:

By their dependence on and their consequent use of food stamps, do Americans necessarily become less American?

Sincerely,

A Alexander Stella

Susquehanna, PA

America is going through the process of election. Yep, it will take a whole year to educate us, the citizens about what they think we should know.

If we understand it or not, I find that the little words are used more and more. Take the word “shame.” I see that if anything that is brought about, say one party, no matter how bad it is, or if it means wrongful, or goes against the golden rule, it is brought out quickly slammed against the wall and exposed to all the public. Wrong doing in who’s eyes? It does not matter as long as it was brought out to the public so they have the chance to disagree.

Now, after that being said, who the hell is supposed to care? You sort of are supposed to know, ya know.

It seems to me that shame or no, hell no. Do and say what ever confuses the very people who are put in place to care. Time will pass and someone else will say or do something, make you forget about what was done or said. I see that this process convicts or makes them guilty. To what you say?

Well it was said, “remember, yes we admitted to doing that,” so what, whatever!

So the rich get richer but you are not supposed to care. The big businesses who supply jobs are not hiring. The congress is not working together, and don't challenge them. Come on man, get a life, it all is for the best. But for whom? Here is another word, a small word, gall; and two words, Tea party; and one more, a slang, boo!

Sincerely,

Peter A. Seman

Thompson, PA

One begins to suspect that those standing in line for the Oval Office have the combined military acumen of a plastic G.I. Joe. While they would all unashamedly admit to ignorance in any number of topics, there is one subject in which they become overnight authorities, U.S. military policy and impatient advocates of its use.

Their faith in this nation's military prowess is a badge of patriotism proudly displayed despite the fact that the U.S. hasn't won a war since WW II. Politicians and generals, particularly generals, have always been pathologically optimistic about martial engagements.

Napoleon, military genius that he was, suffered a crushing defeat in Russia; Confederate Gen. Beauregard thought it an honor to fire the first shot in the Civil War; Gen. Tojo was supremely confident of victory in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

“We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down,” was Hitler's prediction for victory over Russia. The French defeat of the Viet Minh was a certainty. The U.S. made the same mistake.

Remember Iraq? It was a “cake walk.” And the Army and Marines against goat herders in Afghanistan? It turned out to be the longest war in U.S. history and it's not over yet.

The lesson not learned is that the enemy is never as compliantly weak or obligingly stupid as required.

And yet with bewildering mindlessness the candidates prattle on about tightening economic sanctions against Iran. For the past 35 years the U.S. has imposed a series of sanctions against Iran; they have never worked. Pres. Obama's response to this string of failures is to do more of the same: Companies working in the U.S. are forbidden to deal with the Iranian Central Bank for oil. This amounts to an oil embargo.

This is an act of war. Roosevelt enforced an oil embargo against Japan. Japan answered with Pearl Harbor and World War II.

Undeterred by musty history, Mitt Romney, a moderate of sorts, is of the opinion that “the greatest threat the world faces is a nuclear Iran.” To save the world he would bomb Iran.

It follows, according to Romney's logic, that the Iranians will then see the error of not acceding to U.S. demands, thank the U.S. for bombing them, and go about burying their dead. End of problem? Hardly.

Do the former governor or his rivals realize that a global chain-reaction would be triggered by starting a real war in order to prevent an imagined war? For example: What would be the economic consequences of the resultant oil crunch? How would this affect this eurozone's shaky economy ?

And if eurozone's economy were to slide further, how would this impact the U.S.?

Do Romney and company know how easily the Strait of Hormuz can be blocked by Iran? Sink just one tanker and the world's economy will hit bottom along with the ship. Insurance for tankers exiting the Strait would become prohibitively expensive effective shutting off 18 percent of the world's oil.

Are Romney or his fellow contenders aware of the Iranian Kowsar, an anti-ship missile that can defeat electronic jamming and cannot be thrown off course; the Yingii-82, a sea skimming missile with a target-hit probable of 98 percent; or the Raduga, one of the most lethal anti-ship missiles in the world. Its Mach 3 speed gives the target only seconds to react.

Have they considered how Iraq, which is 60 percent Shite, would react to an attack on Iran which is 90 percent Shite?

And what about Iran's allies, China and Russia? How would they answer an attack on Iran?

Have Romney and his fellow aspirants thought about the thousands of civilian deaths an aerial assault on Iran would cause? How U.S. boots on the ground would necessarily follow? How a war with Iran would make Iraq look like a playground squabble?

While Republican hopefuls are blithely unconcerned about bothersome consequences, generals are even less so. That square-jar fraternity in the Pentagon has an inbred “can-do” mentality. You don't win stars by saying, “In all due respect, sir, that is really a dumb idea.” Rather it's, “Yes sir. Sorry I hadn't thought about that. Brilliant idea, sir.”

Fools and fanatics. The comedy continues.

Sincerely,

Bob Scroggins

New Milford, PA