The band, Ten Years After has a song called “I’d Love To Change The World”. Those words of late have come to sum up my life’s goals, and are why I’m writing you today. They say a picture is worth a thousand words; and in the world of political campaigning, it might as well be ten-thousand.

Picture this: a representative poses with a crowd of smiling onlookers, holding a pair of over-sized scissors that could only be used for one thing - ribbon cutting. Along with kissing babies and shaking hands with service men and women, ribbon cutting ceremonies are fairly run of the mill activities for political officials. Ceremonies such as these provide politicians with the opportunity to get out into the community that they supposedly represent in order to mingle with their constituents—and perhaps more importantly (for some officials), they are wonderful photo ops. Even without any accompanying text, the image of a politician cutting a ribbon practically shouts, “Here I am, doing something important for my community, (re) elect me!”

Of course, it helps if the politician present has had some hand in bringing about the event that warrants a ribbon cutting ceremony in the first place. However, Representative Sandra Major recently posed with a group of community members in order to officiate over the ribbon cutting ceremony for the Prompton Dam in Wayne County - a dam that was originally funded by stimulus dollars, which were brought to PA thanks to President O’bama and former Congressman Chris Carney.

Representative Major herself, however, had no part in the funding nor the building of the dam. It seems as though she was exercising a kind of political droit du seigneur - or the “right of the lord,” (which some of you might remember from the classic Braveheart) that allowed a feudal lord to ‘take’ a woman on her wedding night. Only in Representative Major’s droit du representative, she seems to believe that as long as something happens in her district, she can ride up and take the credit for it.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Representative Major has posed for photos that seem inauthentic and problematic, once you look past the veneer of a forced smile or a large pair of scissors. In February of this year, the Independent Weekender printed a picture of Representative Major posing with some local schoolchildren at Elk Lake Elementary School for the Read Across America initiative. The image of a politician, advanced in her career, passing on a love of learning to the younger generation would be almost sweet, were it not for the fact that Representative Major has repeatedly supported Governor Corbett’s cuts to public education—cuts that undoubtedly impacted students at Elk Lake and elsewhere in the 111th district. Though this is just one example of Representative Major trying to garner good PR from a community event that she did not help to generate, it reflects a trend in her campaigning tactics.

Truly, a picture is worth a thousand (or ten thousand) words, but there are times when we need to look past the surface in order to find out what those words actually are. And at the end of the day, isn’t the truth worth infinitely more?

Personally, I do not want to be represented by someone who feels comfortable taking credit for another’s work or posing with students whose lives will be negatively affected by budget cuts that she supported. I think it’s time for my friends in the 111th district to elect a representative who will do more for his district than pose for convenient photo ops, who will not only stand next to a community structure, but also bring in the funding that could make such a structure possible. It’s time for a change.

Sincerely,

Thomas R. Charles

Dimock, PA.

I and other citizen action groups are getting calls and learning about water changes and air changes near gas wells, compressor stations in our Susquehanna County and other counties in PA.

I received a call a week ago from a dairy farmer in our county and learned about the changes in their water and air and for their neighbors since the gas wells came in. I told them to call DEP and get the water tested and talk with their township supervisors, elected officials and report these problems.

There is some fear to speak up. They don't want to be maligned by others for speaking out and don't want to jeopardize losing their royalties. I'm encouraging them to talk and let the world know what is happening to some of us. This information needs to get to the right agencies and be collected and assessed and studied and see why this is happening. We need to get help and have these health impacts studied and something done about it.

Water changes to keep aware of are changes in color, smell, taste, can be fizzy, lower pressure, physical illnesses like higher blood pressure, skin rashes, skin lesions on humans and farm animals. Be aware of changes in air quality with health impacts of headaches, nose and throat irritations, nose bleeds.

Contact your local Citizens Watch Group, Citizens for Clean Water, www.nepagasaction.org, and 607 237 9685, for any further info and support.

Sincerely,

Vera Scroggins

Brackney, Pa.

“Our whole cancer research has been a total failure,” exclaimed Dr. John Bailer, who spent 20 years on the staff of the National Cancer Institute and was editor of its journal.

“We are losing the war against cancer,” was the conclusion of a study conducted by the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine.

“Cancer patients who refuse chemotherapy and radiation actually live up to four times longer than treated cases. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, radical surgery on cancer does more harm than good. As for radiation treatment, most of the time it makes not the slightest difference,” said Hardin Jones, M.D., cancer researcher and former physiology professor at the University of California.

Many question the wisdom of investing more time and money into the traditional treatments of cancer that are proven failures. But we persist in failure. Why?

Cancer has metastasized into a multi-billion dollar industry. The pharmaceutical giants, hospitals, businesses that make radiation equipment; plus tens of thousands of oncologists, surgeons, nurses, radiologists, researchers, specialists, and technicians, all depend on cancer for their income and livelihood.

Are we to assume that all these industries are eagerly looking for ways to put themselves out of business and their battalions of employees are zealously working to stand in the unemployment line? Or could the opposite be true?

The reality is that new therapies, however promising, are and must be denied, discouraged, or even disallowed to protect the booming business of cancer. Here in “the land of the free” it is against the law to treat this disorder by any method except that dictated by orthodoxy.

This doesn't imply a grand conspiracy staffed by evil and greedy men. Certainly many believe that chemo, radiation, and surgery offer the best hope for a cure. It also means that many are ignorant either by design or sloth that they are not only far from curing cancer but are causative agents in its perpetuation.

A look at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Cancer Society (ACS) illustrate the commercialization of cancer.

NCI is big business. It operates on a $6 billion federally funded budget but only 16 percent of this is channeled into programs for cancer patients. The rest pays for drug research, overhead, a bureaucracy of 3,000 employees, and a $2.6 million annual paycheck plus perks for its chief executive.

NCI's basic function is to channel tax dollars to Big Pharma; two-thirds of all cancer drugs were sponsored, developed, and marketed by this “charity.”

Top management is staffed by persons who were or soon may be employed by pharmaceutical companies, processed food manufacturers, or the soft drink industry.

ACS is NCI's country cousin. It squeezes by on a paltry $2.7 billion a year. ACS lopsided budget devotes $1 to services for cancer victims for every $6.40 spent for overhead and salaries. Its CEO receives a hefty $2.7 million yearly salary.

The Society is cheek-to-joule with its big donors: Big Pharma, chemical companies, industrial waste companies, fast food chains, cosmetic companies, and the auto industry. Little wonder, then, that ACS steadfastly opposes innovative treatments while being indifferent to cancer prevention.

Dr. Samuel Epstein in his new book, Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention, skewers both organizations as well as the cancer industry in general. They, according to Epstein, have spent tens of billions focusing on damage control to the exclusion of prevention. And cancer is eminently preventable.

According to the International Agency for Research in Cancer, “95 percent of human cancer is determined environmentally and thus avoidable.” These avoidable causes are: diet = 35 percent, obesity = 20 percent, tobacco = 30 percent, and alcohol = 5 percent. In other words, it is within our power to eliminate 90 percent of cancer.

Despite these facts, only 1 percent of NCI's budget is devoted to diet and prevention.

The remedy for cancer cannot be found in a drug, or a surgeon's scalpel, or a radiation machine, but in your refrigerator stocked with fresh, organic fruits and vegetables and a larder devoid of sugary drinks, candy, or bakery confections (view YouTube: How to eat to prevent cancer).

So next time the NCI and the ACS roll out a Mad Ave fund raising campaign urging you to “walk to cure cancer,” consider telling them to “take a hike.”

Sincerely,

Bob Scroggins

New Milford, PA