The controversy over insurance coverage for contraception is misguided. Protests about religious liberty are not pertinent, since rights primarily belong to individuals, not institutions. If an employee of a nominally Catholic institution wants to use contraception, the choice is theirs, not their employer's, and it should be covered in accordance with insurance industry standards. That means when an individual is Catholic - and Catholic women do use contraception - and especially if they are not. What critics of the Administration directive are fighting for is the "right" of institutions to infringe on the rights of individuals.

Let's be clear. This is all about the pill. Only the pill costs enough to make insurance coverage worthwhile. If you want to exclude RU-486, we could compromise there, but you'd have to accept coverage of the pill, and I don't think uber-Catholics can do that. Compromise is not in their repertoire.

I wonder if they know the story behind the Church's ridiculous position against all contraception. After the pill was invented, Pope Paul VI convened a Papal Commission to determine what the Church's position on it should be. The Commission overwhelmingly ok'd it. But a minority report was submitted by an obscure Cardinal from Krakow who drew a totally nonsequitur lesson from WWII, and Pope Paul bought it. The silly prohibition on contraception should be ignored. Most Catholics do.

Uber-Catholics should not resent coverage of the pill. First, because nobody's making you use it, so you shouldn't get in the way of women who do. Their rights must be equal to your own, and it's not the government's place to enforce Church doctrine on them. Second, Catholics already pay for things that are against Church teachings, and do so with nary a whimper. Like the death penalty and unjust wars. It's beyond silly to take your stand when it comes to the pill. The death penalty and unjust wars cause death; the pill prevents abortion. Isn't that something to be desired?

Sincerely,

Stephen Van Eck

Rushville, PA

I hear the old rhetoric, "Why should I vote, or why should I write or call our representatives? They don't do anything for us anyway." When you have good representatives, results will occur. For those of you who say those words I write the following:

Sandra J. Major, member 111th Legislative district, sent me a reply to thank me for my letter about the possibility of changing some of Pennsylvania's Compensation Law to collect unemployment benefits while they are trying to establish a new business/career.

She also wrote, the change you recommend to the law is being proposed by my colleague Representative Tom Killion of Delaware County. House Bill 1945 would change the Unemployment Compensation Law to permit individuals to collect benefits while they are pursuing forms of self-employment. This legislation has been referred to the House Labor and Industry Committee for their consideration. In the letter, she also stated, "please be assured that I will be mindful of your thoughts on this matter,” it also states, “if and when this legislation comes before the full House of Representative for a vote.”

I also recommend other issues: One is a clear definition of "self-employed" to be explained in nonprofessionals' terms and not lawyer verbiage. Secondly, there should be a warning of a person entering "Tier 2." It should clearly state the rules of the amount of money a person can make; hence, this will reduce or eliminate further jeopardy of future unemployment benefits. Thirdly, a person who cannot find enough work shall still receive unemployment if he or she provides written proof of trying to find employment. Lastly, unemployment makes faster decisions when a person files a dispute. I was told by Sandra Major's aide, Barbara, that unemployment is hiring more personal.

One person can make a difference, and that person is you.

Sincerely,

Larry Gary

Gibson, PA

Somebody tell me that they think they will be better off, with four more years of Barak Obama. Somebody please tell me that we are better off with gasoline costing $4.50 a gallon, especially if you commute a distance to work (if you have a job). Do you know anybody who is unemployed who thinks that they are going to get a job in the next four years the way this country and the ruling establishment is going? Will more regulation inspire small manufacturers like Golis Machine to go out and spend a half a million on another automatic milling machine? Do you question why, with all the oil and gas available under the soil and near shores of the United States, we Americans should have to compete in the world markets for our gasoline and heating oil? Any reason, other than Federal Government policy, why we should not have some substantial benefits from these natural resources which are, after all, the property of the American citizens? Right now, the beneficiaries are the oil companies (record profits) and the government (to make more of us dependent on them). At least some of the oil companies are publically owned and some benefits are going to American stockholders. We know what the Feds do with it. Maybe things like hundreds of millions ferrying Obama around in Air Force One while campaigning (sorry, I meant explaining to the people about how wonderful his administration is, helping them by stopping the Keystone XL pipeline) or flying his entourage to Hawaii for Christmas. And let’s not even look at Federal intrusion into religious freedom and our health care choices. Really gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling, doesn’t it?

This administration has had three years to create a more favorable environment for small business, the nursery for job creation. Three years to address the spiraling debt (does anyone really think that there is a free lunch?). Three years to make strides in securing our energy supplies (instead of cramming heavily subsidized ethanol and ludicrous solar energy projects upon us). Bush, for all his faults (and he had many) opened up both coasts for offshore oil drilling. Obama closed all of it. Feel good now?

There is only one thing that counts in a presidential candidate (including Obama) - what have they done, what is their record, do they walk the walk. All the talk, and there will be plenty of it, isn’t worth the powder to blow it to hell. If you think that four more years of the current administration will bring prosperity, I respectfully think that you out of your mind, or hopelessly gullible.

Sincerely,

Joe McCann

Elk Lake, PA

The war in Libyan is over. It took seven months of U.S.-NATO air strikes, on-ground military advice, satellite intelligence, arms, and money, to depose former ally Muammar Gaddafi and install a transitional government.

Now it's time to examine the consequences of what may be a Pyrrhic victory.

Gaddafi had warehouses stockpiled with thousands of SA-24s, Russian-made, cutting edge, shoulder-fired, surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). Also inventoried were Russian MDM-3s sea mines unequaled for their sophistication and lethality. The weapons' caches were looted during the chaos that followed Gaddafi's downfall.

Black marketeers descended on Libya like vultures on a carcass eager to snap-up the stolen weapons at any price. Buyers from Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, and China were anxious to reverse engineer the hardware and manufacture them domestically.

Other buyers were more troubling. Agents from organizations such as al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, and perhaps purchasers for Mexican drug cartels, were in the market for these game-changing arms.

An estimated 20,000 SAMs and an unspecified number MDM-3 sea mines are missing. Now they could be anywhere and everywhere.

The SAMs pose the gravest threat to U.S. aircraft. These man-portable missiles travel at a sustained speed of 1,800 mph, use a solid fuel propellant, and need no maintenance. After five minutes of instruction, anyone can fire it competently. Drones, cruise missiles, helicopters, fighter jets, it doesn't matter; if it flies lower than two miles, these SAMs can down it.

The usual countermeasures of a target are flares and aluminum chaff to confuse the missile and throw it off course. But these SAMs are brainy; they have countermeasures to the countermeasures.

It's a good assumption that the CIA was also waiting in line to purchase the Russian weaponry. Peering inside its electronics is vital to determine how the missile can be thwarted. But developing jamming, testing, and fielding can take as much as five years. And knock-offs with tweaked electronics can render current jamming techniques useless. It's a cat-and-mouse game where the winner is problematical and temporary.

But there is no cat-and-mouse game with the Russian sea mines. There are no countermeasures against the MDMs.

Remember those WW II sea mines? the big metal spheres with protuberances that would bob ominously half-submerged in the sea? Deadly, to be sure, but as out-of-date as a Stanley Steamer.

The MDMs can be sown by plane or ship. They fall to the ocean floor, become covered with mud and sea detritus. The plastic mines quickly become invisible to visual and magnetic detection. But these mines are not only super stealthy they are super smart.

They can be programmed to react to the acoustical signatures of specific kinds of ships: submarines, destroyers, cruisers, aircraft carriers, or super tankers. And it can't be triggered by the prop sounds of other ships such as civilian crafts, underwater mine hunting vehicles, mine decoy vessels, or mine sweepers.

When it detects an encoded vibration overhead, it is actuated. The MDM is rocket-propelled to the most venerable part of a vessel, its hull. It is fused to detonate just before contact. The explosion creates a vacuum causing the hull of the ship to explode outward. It's probably a kill shot.

No one knows what the proliferation of SA-24s and MDM-3s will mean. Given enough SAMs, Iran, Afghanistan, or any other nation, could become no-fly zones.

As for the MDMs, imagine a few dozen of these mines on the seabed of the Strait of Hormuz. They could be planted not only by belligerent nations but terrorists organizations. The mere threat of mining would be enough to disrupt military operations and bring commercial traffic to a halt.

And the Palestinian government, Hamas, could control its coastline with carefully laid minefields of MDMs allowing passage of some ships but denying a safe voyage to others such as Israel.

Strangely, it may lead to a rebirth of MAD, the mutually assured destruction doctrine between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R that gave the world an uneasy peace for 50 years. At best we can hope for a Mexican standoff among contentious powers and a new precarious balance of power.

And if not that, then what?

Sincerely,

Bob Scroggins

New Milford, PA