Letters to the Editor, Aug. 4

Cartoon by Jim Meadows

Cartoon by Jim Meadows

Only aggressors are those stopping feeders

Re: “Are Stuyvesant Town’s squirrels getting more aggressive?”, T&V story, July 14

Dear Sabina.

“A child was bitten by a squirrel in Stuy Town.” Can you share with us where and when this happened? Was the child taken to the hospital? In that case which hospital? It is very unprofessional to report such a thing without proof. We don’t need that in the Town & Village newspaper or any other newspaper. How come this is reported as a fact by you when the spokesperson for StuyTown property Services said that no proven incidents involving squirrel bites have been reported to management?

How come this is reported as a fact by you when I have been feeding squirrels with my two children in Stuyvesant for a long time and haven’t seen any “aggressive” ones?

A few weeks ago we were feeding the squirrels when one security guard approached us, stating he was “advising” tenants not to feed the squirrels because a child was bitten by one.

As I told this guard and a few women who have approached me: Thank you for the advice, but I will not stop feeding the squirrels because that is not a true story.

One young woman told me she had a friend whose neighbor’s baby was bitten by a squirrel. When I asked her if she was present when that happened, she said no. When I asked her if she knew this person, she said no. But she did tell me to stop feeding the squirrels because they “look aggressive.”

On another occasion, a woman who was walking by with her daughter and grandchild while I was feeding the squirrels, stopped me and asked if I would consider stopping feeding the squirrels because they had bitten a child. When I replied that I would not consider it, she couldn’t believe it. I didn’t argue, I didn’t curse and I have never been disrespectful to my neighbors, but this is getting ridiculous.

Continue reading

Opinion: The apologetic Justice Ginsburg

By former Assemblyman Steven Sanders

A week ago Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg waded into Presidential politics. She should not have. Sure she had a constitutional right to do so. After all, the First Amendment does not restrict judges from speaking their minds on matters of importance that are not subject to litigation before them.

However, her comments about the Republican Presidential candidate were ill advised and she was right to issue an apology. Whether her assessment of Donald Trump as a “faker” and impulsive was correct, or condemning his refusal to release his tax returns as all candidates for President have done now for 40 years was justified or not, as a jurist on the nation’s highest court she should have kept her opinions to herself.

Donald Trump’s response to her criticism was predictable. He said that “her mind is shot” and as such should resign from the court!

What I find fascinating about this latest tempest is that Ginsburg ultimately understood that her spontaneous remarks were inappropriate for a person in her position. She reflected on that and said that she regretted having made such comments. Contrast that with Mr. Trump. Do you recall him apologizing for anything that he has said along the campaign trail? Has he ever demonstrated any remorse for the nasty and intemperate things that he has said about opponents or just people he does not like? Is he capable of admitting to any mistakes or being introspective or reflective? Do we care if a President is devoid of these qualities? These are all important questions.

Continue reading