PC Road a parking lot for trucks?
To the Editor:
When I attended Rick Hayduk’s get acquainted meeting, I was impressed by (among other things) his resolve to stop using Peter Cooper Road for overnight parking of the complex’s big box trucks.
The big trucks have disappeared, but a smaller one has taken up what appears to be permanent residence. The truck, complete with plow and salt spreader has not moved from its spot on Peter Cooper Road since the end of the last snowstorm. That’s about two weeks.
Perhaps it’s in position for the next big storm. If so, it may be here until fall. Or maybe its battery is dead. Should we call AAA for management?
I informed management of this truck’s permanent position last week via the “feedback” e-mail address that Mr. Hayduk said would be monitored for residents’ complaints. So far, I have heard nothing back and the truck has not moved.
Technically, this is not one of the big trucks that Rick Hayduk said would no longer be kept on the roads in the complex. As such, it doesn’t violate the letter of his statement but it certainly is at odds with the spirit. And the lack of response to my e-mail makes me fear that Blackstone, like the previous owner, is NATO (no action, talk only). If so, residents will have more reason than the similar names to confuse Blackstone and BlackRock.
Joe Lisanti, PCV
Housing for humans, not pandas
The NY Times has documented Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney’s “quest” to procure a pair of giant pandas for the Bronx Zoo.
At a time when other concerns (housing for humans, income inequality, racism by police and others, etc.) require urgent attention from our legislators, why are we voters paying for Maloney and her staff to pursue this inhumane and essentially trivial project?
Enough baloney from Maloney.
Voting based on everything but issues
It seems we are at it again: don’t vote for S because only C can defeat T.
Here one’s vote is determined by what one presumes others will do in the presidential election. That, I take it, is the current state of practicality. It never comes out that that sort of thinking allows some pretty awful stuff to remain unnoticed.
In the logic of “what others will do” we forget that C has confessed to having been wrong in her vote for the invasion of Iraq and then, as a sign she learned nothing, went on to favor the destruction of Libya. Now, just this past week, C is on record favoring bombing Syria “when diplomacy fails” — as if diplomacy were the name of an easily identifiable phenomenon like bronchitis or acidity. How reasonable of C to favor blowing up other people — “when diplomacy fails” of course!
Then there is the assertion we should vote for C because it’s time for a woman to be president of The United States. Taken singularly, the criterion seems to be “time.” This is a counter stupidity to the old one that it takes manliness to do the tough job! But there is more. In the face of C opting to bomb “if diplomacy fails,” it is argued that a woman president is less likely than a testosterone male to go to war — as if “mushroom cloud” was first uttered by a man named Condoleezza Rice… as if “We think it is worth it!” (in response to it be pointed out that 500,000 Iraqi kids were killed) were uttered by a man called Madeleine Albright… as if C herself did not vote to invade Iraq and then, having learned her lesson, pushed regime change in Libya and now, well… “Bombs away!”
So here is the future: in order to compete with S, C moves left thus narrowing the value distance between herself and S. “Not bad! Just good politics,” you think. Well, not so fast.
Remember, and this is key, C has also said that between her and S she alone has the inner knowledge-from-experience to deal with the opposite party in congress. So C moves left for the primaries, secures the nomination, becomes president, then has the other party in Congress force her to the right (all under the notion of democracy at work through collaboration). Of course, C lays the responsibility of her movement to the right at the doorstep of her opposition in Congress (“They made me do it!” is her cry), but the interplay produces exactly those policies C wanted all along. “Preposterous!” you think. Not so! Isn’t that exactly what C’s husband did when he was president — move right and blame the Republicans to get what he wanted?
Well, finally… what about S? Well, S has had his chance and continues to insist on his one-liner without connecting its truth to all else that needs reflection. Does S really believe that we might take better care of ourselves here at home while pursuing a foreign policy in which we drop bombs on civilians and deny them the validity of so much as a whimper. To call S a “socialist” is to engage BS.
John Giannone, ST