Happy Birthday!

In the heat of summer, don’t leave pets in car
Well, here

Resident backs Barletta on banning camera use
Much has been made in recent weeks about Congressman Lou Barletta&rsquo;s decision not to allow personal cameras into town hall meetings. I agree with the congressman&rsquo;s decision for many reasons.
 First, many attendees of town hall meetings do not want to appear in YouTube videos and online blogs. Random people with cameras can easily intimidate people from attending these meetings. Second, by still allowing the news media to bring cameras, the people of the region will get a true perspective of what happened at the meeting, not a 30-second clip of some left-wing activist screaming at our congressman. 
Barletta has gone out of his way to be accessible to the public. Our former congressman, Paul Kanjorski, wouldn&rsquo;t even hold face-to-face town hall meetings with the people. 
I commend Congressman Barletta for the great job he is doing for our region, and for his accessibility and the accessibility of his office staff. I am proud to say he is my congressman. 
Independent candidates seeking voters&rsquo; support
Now that the dust has settled after the taxpayer-funded primary contests, the view of November&rsquo;s Luzerne County Council battlefield is clearer. Voters need to be aware that at least two third-party candidates will be hard at work gathering the nearly 1,000 signatures required to appear on the General Election ballot. There is no air of sophistication, nor a long list of credentials, that follows these gentlemen. There is just a hard-nosed, dogged determination to do right for the downtrodden taxpayers of Luzerne County. 
 Tim Mullen is an Army combat veteran of the Iraq war who currently works as a registered nurse. Charlie &ldquo;Bible Buck&rdquo; Hatchko is a retired truck driver/Teamster warehouseman/prison guard. Both men have been taxpayers in Luzerne County most of their lives.
Each leads the pack of contenders in his own distinct area. Mr. Hatchko considers himself by far the most morally conservative candidate, which is a prerequisite for the cleanout of this ethics-challenged county. Mr. Mullen bills himself as the most fiscally conservative candidate in a county that has racked up a debt fast approaching a half a billion dollars. Mr. Hatchko has vast experience with collective bargaining negotiations. Mr. Mullen takes a strong anti-public service union stance.
Both men have rock-solid, anti-nepotism and anti-cronyism positions. They assure people that the taxpayers of Luzerne County will never again be viewed as sheep that need a regular fleecing. Both agree that the county&rsquo;s large elderly population bears a disproportionate slice of the suffering.
 Both men, however, are compassionate, in that they both agree that if possible attrition, rather than layoffs, should be employed as a means of reducing county expenditures and paying down debt. Both men agree in a fair workingman&rsquo;s wage, but not at the expense of the homeowners, many of whom are elderly and the least able to bear the brunt of further property tax increases.
Neither of these men will ask you for your hard-earned money to support their cause. They ask you only to spread word of their truly independent efforts to right the wrongs of the past in Luzerne County.
 
Don&rsquo;t judge a sci-fi movie simply on its strange title
The previews for &ldquo;Cowboys &amp; Aliens&rdquo; actually look pretty interesting. Apparently, movies have come a long way since &ldquo;Attack of the Killer Tomatoes.&rdquo;
Titles do not make a movie.
Weis Markets settlement falls short for this writer
I was annoyed May 15 when I saw the fine print at the bottom of the Weis Markets flier in an area newspaper. There was information about a class-action settlement in the amount of $7.50 for people who used their credit cards at Weis-owned stores from 2006 to 2008.
Weis would routinely display much of the customer&rsquo;s credit card number on its receipts, thus exposing this private information. What did the court figure the cost of this blunder to be? Seven dollars and 50 cents per effected customer.
 You tell me, readers, what will $7.50 buy us? Not a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk! Is that justice?
 Answer me this, Weis: Did the big lawyers who settled this case get $7.50? I wonder, did they shop at Weis? Tell me, Weis, are you going to run more of these ads in the future so everyone concerned has a chance to become aware of their rights? Or, better yet, why not run something on television for our seniors?
 Another question: Is it $7.50 per credit card user or per household?
A word of advice to the public: Claim your $7.50. Imagine $7.50 times 2,000 unclaimed customers. That&rsquo;s a pretty penny that Weis gets to keep in its pockets.
As you know, prices probably will keep going up whether you claim this $7.50 or not. And it&rsquo;s not because of gas. It&rsquo;s because Weis presumably will pass the cost of this settlement on to you.
Where is the justice?
Commission&rsquo;s license fees within reasonable range
After reading the letter from George W. Gross of Dallas (&ldquo;Shooting enthusiast says range permit no bargain,&rdquo; May 14), I decided to look further into his comments.
On the Pennsylvania Game Commission&rsquo;s website, I discovered additional licensing information that he had overlooked and might want to consider.
Yes, a &ldquo;range permit&rdquo; is $30 annually; however, those people who have abused the privilege of using the Game Commission ranges are responsible for the permit having to be instituted. It is sad to say, but &ldquo;the thoughtlessness of a few causes the penalty for many.&rdquo; The cost of maintaining the ranges uses Commission funds that are needed elsewhere. With limited funding, our Game and Fish commissions are rated among the top in the nation, and Pennsylvanians should be proud of the job they are doing. 
A review of license costs lists a &ldquo;senior&rdquo; (older than 65) hunting license at only $13.70 annually. For George, that would be only $27.40 for two senior licenses. This would be a savings of $32.60 over the cost of two annual range permits. Depending on how many years George and his wife feel they would desire to use the ranges, there also is for his consideration a &ldquo;senior lifetime hunting&rdquo; license for $51.70, renewable each year at no cost.
For those seniors who still hunt, there also is a &ldquo;senior combination hunting lifetime&rdquo; license costing $101.50, which includes hunting, trapping, muzzleloader and archery; along with use of the ranges &ndash; and with no annual renewal cost. For seniors, these are all excellent offerings.
One final thought: Individuals using the ranges for target practice will in most cases pay more for the ammunition they use in one outing than the cost of a permit for using the ranges all year.
Send us your opinion

Letters to the editor must include the writer&rsquo;s name, address and daytime phone number for verification. Letters should be no more than 250 words. We reserve the right to edit and limit writers to one published letter every 30 days.

&#8226; E-mail: mailbag@www.timesleader.com



&#8226; Fax: 570-829-5537


&#8226; Mail: Mail Bag, The Times Leader, 15 N. Main St., Wilkes-Barre, PA 1871&#8194;1

Resident backs Barletta on banning camera use Much has been mad