In my Letter to the Editor last week, I should have wrote that the concern I had with Mr. Nate Hentoff was about unborn babies. I did not mean to classify Mr. Hentoff with the ACLU.

Sincerely,

Bruce Moorhead

Susquehanna, PA.

Bob (I-couldn’t-get-into-med-school) Scroggins’ analysis of Angelina Jolie’s double mastectomy was misogynous, inaccurate and not his decision of which to approve or disapprove. My opinion is that seeing his name in print bolsters his helium-filled ego and that he fancies himself a journalist.

In the 1980s, I was acquainted with one of the leading journalists of our time, Walter Cronkite. So allow me to rephrase Lloyd Bentsen’s response during his 1988 vice presidential debate when Dan Quayle stated that he himself had as much political experience as John F. Kennedy: I knew Walter Cronkite. Mr. Scroggins, you are no Walter Cronkite.

Cordially,

Dr. Ron Gasbarro

New Milford, PA

So often, we read the implication of homosexuality as being immoral. We read these types of people should not given equal rights as those that are in a marriage, a union recognizable by all, church, state and the federal government.

Therefore, this letter is to give knowledge to those who do not understand that gays are humans with certain inalienable rights. "Do they not bleed?

Ask yourself these questions: Were you asked to be born: Were you asked to be born a male or female: Were you asked to be born a certain color: Were you asked to be born a twin: Were you asked to be born with certain sexual feelings?

There are many types of twins, fraternal, identical, Siamese, and a twin-within. One can understand fraternal twins, as they come out of a woman's womb separately; it is the same with identical twins. Most are familiar with Siamese or conjunctional twins; they are two bodies stuck together. The commonality here is that you can visualize these types of twins.

However, the fourth set of twins most of you have no knowledge. It is a "Twin Within." It is unseen by the naked eye. Hence, some of us use slanderous words of someone as being a cross-dresser or Transvestite or a Homosexual. This person is of two souls, a male body and a female within: a female body with a male within. They can identify with both sexes or not identify with any of the sexes. Some refer to these people as switch-able, or "Third Gender" persons.

On a few cable channels is a program that comes on from time to time. "I Am My Own Twin" (I believe this is the title.) This program will explain their existence and scientifically prove these people exist.

For those of you who have access to Web sites, may I suggest viewing, "religioustolerence.org." They interpret parts of the Bible (those of you who believe in the Bible) that Adam is of both sexes, which are male and female. It states that God is of two genders. To me it makes sense and out of a rib of Adam comes Eve. Scientifically we all start as both.

All of the above twins have a choice, as well as all humans when it refers to "promiscuity." You can remain celibate, have safe sex before marriage, or be promiscuous.

Promiscuity leads to unwanted pregnancies, disease, abortions, adultery, fornication and God only knows what else.

It seems that many stereotype gays as promiscuous. As those that stereotype Jews, as being cheap or Italians as being in a mob, or Muslims being terrorists.

As a reminder, few of your holy rollers (priests) who are "Bible" believers, God-fearing persons, have committed the most outrageous crimes of child molestation. Apparently, the Bible has little effeteness on their morals.

Ask yourself, "Is it fair to stereotype all priests? Then why stereotype gays and their lifestyles? We are all subject to making mistakes. This is why pencils have erasers. We are "all human" and subject to the laws of our country.

May I make a suggestion? Perhaps we can compromise and have the states recognize the following: Marriage is a union between a man and woman: Merriage is a union between two women: Mirriage is a union between two men. Maaaaariage, we will not go there.

Let Churches of all denominations make their own rules.

Please try to remember the contributions of many gay and transgender persons. Many of you know some of them from television or movies. They are artists, musicians or actors.

One final question, "Would you accept a blood transfusion to save your child's life? Would you refuse this blood from a homosexual who is completely disease free: a person who is not promiscuous: a person who lives a monogamous life?"

Let us learn to be mature and put away all stereotypes.

Promiscuity is the sin: Promiscuity is the culprit!

Sincerely,

Larry Gary

Gibson, PA

You're worried. You have a family history of breast cancer. Could you be next? A visit to an oncologist confirms your worst fears; you have the mutated BRCA gene, the cancer gene. Your physician suggests two choices: the drugs tamoxifen or raloxifene, or prophylactic mastectomy.

It's a terrible choice. One of the side effects of tamoxifen is cancer, while raloxifene increases your risk of dying from stroke, heart attack, or pulmonary embolism. On the other hand, prophylactic mastectomy reduces your chance of contracting breast cancer by 85 percent. (Of course, if your breasts are amputated, you will have less breast cancer.)

Which do you choose, drugs or surgery?

Either choice is dreadful. But there is a third option, one that is beneficial but is rarely discussed and frequently ignored. But more about this later.

Let's start with the common medical paradigm: your health is largely determined by your genes. In this case, it's the mutated BRCA-1 or BRCA-2 gene. But these genes do not cause cancer; they predispose you to the disease. What's the difference?

For women with the mutated BRCA gene born before 1940, the chance of developing breast cancer was 24 percent. But for women born after 1940, the chance of contracting breast cancer was 67 percent. What caused the rate to almost triple?

Going back further in time, one would expect that the rate would be less than 24 percent. This is not possible since statistics were not kept in the 19th century. But it is possible to compare the breast cancer rates in the United States with other nations.

Compare Japan, which has the lowest rate of breast cancer rate of 9 per 100,00 women, with the United States' at 21 per 100,000 women. Why is the the U.S. rate more than double that of Japan's?

One explanation is that the BRCA gene is far less common in Japan. But this is not the case.

A study conducted under the auspices of the Department of Biochemistry in Tokyo's Cancer Institute, concluded that “The evidence reported here supports a rather limited role of BRAC 1 in breast carcinogenesis.”

What, then, could explain the difference in breast cancer rates? Certainly not the BRCA gene; genes do not change. It must have been something else, some unknown factor in the environment. In other words, it was the interplay between the mutated BRCA gene and an unknown factor, factor X, that determined whether this gene was expressed or repressed.

DR. Walter Willett, Chairman of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard, thinks he knows what the X factor is---it's obesity. In men, obesity is defined as having a body weight of 25 percent fat, in women it's 32 percent.

The United States is the fattest nation on Earth. About 36 percent of the population is obese with a high rate of breast cancer. Japan is the least obese at 3 percent and has the least breast cancer.

Willett points to a compelling association between obesity and all forms of cancer and a host of other illnesses. But why?

Excess body fat was once thought to be inactive storage tissue for excess calories, at worst only a cosmetic problem. Today it is known that fat cells are metabolically active producing the female hormone, estrogen.

If a person is overweight he is producing too much estrogen. And it is estrogen that fuels prostate cancer and breast cancer. Herein lies the key to drastically reduce almost all types of cancer, as well as high blood pressure, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and many other ailments.

The epidemic of obesity points to one villain: sugar.

Eat or drink something sweet and almost immediately the blood is flooded with too much sugar. Insulin is secreted to clear the blood of surplus sugar and store it in muscle cells or in the liver. But if these bins cannot accept the overload, then it is converted into fat, and fat is an estrogen-producing machine.

It boils down to this choice: feed your sweet tooth and you feed your cancer. Or starve your sweet tooth and starve your cancer and the cancer industry as well. And that's why this, the third choice, is the one scarcely, if ever, mentioned.

Sincerely,

Bob Scroggins

New Milford, PA

Montrose has had many decisions that resulted in legal costs or other costs stacking up since the walk out at the meeting on February 6, 2012. The President of the Council was encouraging at least 3 other members of the council to walk out with him prior to the meeting. Then after calling the meeting to order and some discussion as to what can be done later if they departed, he announced “If you have any objection on religious or moral or any objections at all now would be the time to leave.” Within 45 seconds 6 of the Councillors departed the meeting room with one remaining and two minutes after the Presidents announcement the Mayor announced that the meeting was over due to a lack of quorum. Under section 904 of the Borough Code, those six Councillors could have been removed from council by the remaining Councillor after a hearing. So the media was contacted and this started the media frenzy that followed. There was a special meeting called for on February 14, 2012 for passing some meeting rules that have ended in court appearance twice. One to come to an agreement in the judge’s chambers, which was not followed by council when they amended rules. At the second hearing the one part of the rules that was challenged was declared unconstitutional by the judge. From reading the rules and amended rules I still see parts of the rules violating the Sunshine Act and one section violating the Borough Code.

There was a problem before the special meeting on 14 February 2012. The solicitor and council tried to enforce the proposed rules before they were adopted. This resulted in a camera being moved by a Policeman, but from prior court decisions in PA and Federal courts this action violates the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. The borough solicitor cited section 1202 (74) of the Borough Code as the rule when asked. The problem is her logic was flawed, under section 1202, Specific Powers; Council first has to pass a rule to enforce the rule. I would expect more from the solicitor, who is also the assistant district attorney, than trying to enforce a rule that does not exist by identifying a Specific Power in the Borough Code to bluff people in attendance at the meeting into believing that there is a rule. So during the meeting the solicitor informed a member of council that she received the rules from the Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs. The problem is I also contacted the Director of Research for PSAB and she informed me that they do not draft policies or ordinances, etc. Did the solicitor write these rules that violate the Constitution, Sunshine Act and the Borough Code or did she receive these rules from another borough?

Then there are the e-mails, including one calling a resident of the borough a clown. This is an elected official in a public record insulting a member of the community. This resulted in two TV stations requesting e-mails that were not fully sent to them and included junk mail, but the media outlets successfully appealed to the Office of Open Records and the borough did not appeal to the courts. One thing I learned from one of my First Sergeants was that when assuming a leadership position or of authority is that you have to grow a thicker skin due to comments or criticism by others. These e-mails show me that many of the Councillors do not take comments or criticism well.

Then there are the issues with the Zoning Hearing Board and the appointments. For a five member ZHB, according to the Municipal Planning Code, they are appointed for five years terms or the remainder of a term to fill it in, and one five year term starts each year. There are a few ways to be removed from the ZHB: resign, move out of the borough, or be removed after a hearing for one of three reasons. In March 2012 the council appointed five members to the ZHB, ignoring the fact that some of the prior terms are still occupied by at least four others. This calls into question the legality of all decisions and resolutions of the ZHB due to having illegally appointed members on the board and appeals to courts. One member had sent a letter to the borough, stating that she would like to continue being on the ZHB, but what she does not know is that she still is if the five year term she was appointed to did not end yet. Then the borough also set the meeting schedule through January 22, 2013. The problem is that the term that ended in 2012 ends on December 31, 2012 and by the MPC members cannot succeed themselves into another term.

There is also an appeal to the ZHB where $300 was charged for the appeal and the zoning laws of the borough calls for a $175 fee. So did members of the borough just decide to ignore the law and charge what they wanted or what was in a draft for a new zoning law?

Then there are the secret meetings to resolve the Davis Property issue for the ZHB. Why was at least one Coucillor excluded from these executive sessions to lease the property instead of continuing a lawsuit against the borough? Under section 708 (b) of the Sunshine Act it is a violation if one of the Councillors is not informed of these meetings 24 hours in advance. Then was the contract for the lease even voted on when it came out in December 2013 at an open meeting, if not there is no authority for the lease or any payments made.

The last issue is pay. In January 2012 the council voted to increase the pay to $1875 a year, the statutory maximum for boroughs its size. The problem is under the PA Constitution, you cannot vote to increase your pay during your current term. The councillors were paid that amount last year, but the individuals elected for the 2014-2018 and 2016-2020 are the ones that can collect that pay rate and the old pay should have been issued.

So the residents of Montrose need to be informed of some of what their Borough is doing: illegal meeting rules being passed, improper appointments, questionable actions by members of council by excluding a member of council from executive sessions and other issues, a questionable lease that is using impacts of drilling funds, the solicitor/assistant district attorney trying to enforce rules that do not exist, charging a fee greater than what is called for in the zoning laws and an illegally pay increase for themselves. Then there is the issue where six of the Councillors can still be removed from council for walking out on their duties.

The problem that I see is this is not all that is happening that is wrong or exposing the borough to liability by the actions of members of council.

Sincerely,

Bret A. Jennings

Councillor, Great Bend Borough & Chairman, Hallstead Great Bend Joint Sewer Authority