Still feeling the Bern, not trusting the Hill
To the Editor:
After asking rhetorically if the progressive presidential campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders is adopting the helter skelter strategy of the “warped revolution” of the murderous Manson cult family in 1969, Steven Sanders (no relation and no friend) writes that this veteran senator who has years and years of experience in the Senate actually believes that he can accomplish his populist program “immediately.”
What the senator meant was that a revolution of new voters could result in the Democrats taking control of the House and the Senate making it possible for his programs to be made into law swiftly. Steven Sanders also makes the “analysis” which he admits is “a bit outlandish,” that Senator Sanders hopes that Donald Trump will become the next President. Really? The Senator has repeatedly said that “Trump is a pathological liar…a danger to the entire world” who must never be elected. I believe that the senator means what he says; unlike his opponents, his whole campaign, indeed his whole career, has been forthright. He is the only candidate who has earned my trust.
Unlike his opponents, the senator has not flip-flopped on any of his principles or public policy issues. He has not let the polls dictate his campaign platform. In fact, he’s been saying the same thing over and over since he began his campaign and because of this single-minded purpose and his honesty, he rose from a low of 3 percent in the polls last year to within striking distance of the nomination now. And this despite millions of independent voters not being allowed to exercise their right to vote; despite the DNC chairwoman’s biased debate schedule (Clinton won’t debate him anymore); despite the handicap of President Clinton campaigning for Hillary which, according to President Obama, is like running against two candidates; and despite the elite superdelegate politicians influencing the voting process by manipulating the media to report over and over that Hillary is far ahead of Bernie in the delegate count even though 541 superdelegates could change their votes at any time.
Speaking of superdelegates, these powerful politicians of the Democrat Establishment have helped to make the presidential race uneven and unfair. Is it fair to a runner in a 2383 yard race to give his opponent a 541 yard head start? Of course not. Yet before Senator Sanders even entered the race, 541 Democratic politicians threw their votes to Clinton. I guess they thought no one on earth could possibly be a better candidate than Hillary, or maybe they owed the Clintons favors. Who knows? You’d have to have proof of that kind of you-scratch-my-back bartering and wheeling/dealing such as emails but, as reported recently in the New York Times, even mentioning the secretary’s emails has always been and will always be off limits. But the FBI may change all that.
But if polls can be trusted, unlike certain candidates who are considered untrustworthy (see The New York Times article by Amy Chuzick, “Emails Add to Hillary Clinton’s Central Problem: Voters Just Don’t Trust Her”), it seems that Hillary can’t do much better than a tie with Trump, a candidate whom everyone including the media has never taken seriously, even calling him a clown. A tie! With a clown!
Whereas the candidate whom all the Democrat big wigs thought was a longshot – a tired, old carriage horse compared to their Triple Crown choice – beats the Republican clown by double digits. Double digits! Thus the polls predict that Sanders, who incidentally has the highest favorable rating of all candidates, can easily defeat Trump whereas Clinton is a 50-50 gamble. The question is this: will those Establishment superdelegates consider changing their votes to support the popular Senator, as the Senator hopes, because he has a much better chance of winning? Or will these big shots stick with the Establishment choice, place their bet and gamble everything on Hillary? Here’s a clue: these professional politicians and superdelegates have been known to gamble before.
For example, for their best chance of winning the election of 1984, these elite experts gambled on Walter Mondale. Remember him?
John Cappelletti, ST
East River Park in a state of neglect
The following is an open letter to Council Member Dan Garodnick:
Dear Council Member Garodnick,
My name is Hermann Reiner and I am a resident of Manhattan for about 34 years. Since 21 years, I have lived in the most beautiful place in Manhattan, in Stuyvesant Town. I have written to you in the past when I felt that there was something was really wrong in the city. This time I am writing to you of the conditions of the East River Park, where I enjoy my evening walk. The pier renovation was finished about five years ago and had taken about eight years to finish.
About 10 years ago, the soccer field with the running track was renovated. The old had five high poles with flood lights. After renovation, the lights were forgotten to be put in place again. And guess what? Since about five years, portable diesel fuel generators were put on place with some elevated flood lights. The smell of the diesel exhausts does not let you jog there anymore. I have pictures, happy to send them to you. All the baseball fields have lights.
Three years ago about 100 trees or more were cut down, and only have partly been replaced. All trees which were on the street side, FDR Drive, were cut and have not been replaced. It looks to me that the Parks department is not replacing them. Those trees were a shield against traffic, dust and noise. So many missing trees. A real shame.
The entire park is neglected.
I am sure a walkthrough with the responsible politicians, the mayor’s office and the Parks commissioner will confirm my observation.
Hurricane Irene (2011) swept some of the East River park and cracked surfaces on the 12 tennis courts, then Hurricane Sandy (2012) did the rest. My wife and I were active tennis players and used the East River Park tennis courts quite frequently until 2013, until I had some medical procedures.
For 2016, our resolution was to freeze our gym membership for the three summer months and play tennis instead, and walk the river front in East River Park.
So on May 27 we went there in the late afternoon, we got the shock of our life. First there is no attendant anymore; you have to sign in at some posted sheet. The courts are in a real desolate condition, no wonder that it was not real busy.
Several years ago, I had looked at the tennis courts at Central Park and the 70’s. They were in mint condition.
So I must assume as the East River Park and the tennis courts on the Lower East Side are not the priority of the administration. Central Park looks beautiful, but for the Lower East Side, good enough?
Thank you for your attention.
Hermann Reiner, ST