Letters to the Editor
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.
‘Got a Ticket? Who’re You Going to Call?’
The New York Sun’s story about the emergence of companies to help people fight parking tickets misses the chance to point out a much better solution [“Got a Ticket? Who’re You Going To Call?” Geoffrey Gray, Page One, September 17, 2004].
There are a huge number of people who park in restricted areas courtesy of officially sanctioned, some not so sanctioned, and some outright fraudulent parking passes. And far too many parking enforcement and law enforcement agents, including people who should know better – and are sworn to uphold the laws – genuflect before these placards and stickers.
Rather than continue the city’s policy of benign neglect towards these abusers, a far better solution is to mandate each and every officer with parking enforcement authority to, indeed, ticket these vehicles. All of them. No exceptions.
If the owner of the car with one of these signs is, indeed, on official or approved business, then the ticket will get dismissed by the city on receipt of a signed affidavit. But the huge numbers that are gaming the system will quickly learn their lessons.
As an added advantage, this will improve traffic flow, increase the number of legitimate spaces available for authorized users, and add to municipal revenue.
DANIEL BURSTEIN
Manhattan
‘Zivotofsky v. State’
Regarding Menachem Zivotofsky, a child born to Americans living in Jerusalem who sought to have the place of birth on his passport specified as Jerusalem, Israel, although these decisions via the Department of State and Judge Kessler stop at the president’s desk, methinks the same should more likely be attributed to the political climate of State and a member of the judiciary who deems herself “Queen for a Day” and, perhaps, beyond [“Zivotofsky v. State,” Editorial, September 10, 2004].
Although this reader agrees with the New York Sun’s determination as to such decision(s) hampering the American-Israeli alliance, and my own personal belief that Jerusalem is the just capital of Israel, there is an ominous disrespect for the rule of domestic law at play here.
State and this member of the judiciary have blatantly undermined a constitutionally protected statute. We have an ongoing problem here in America, and if a legal remedy is available for President Bush to override Judge Kessler and State, I humbly urge him to do so.
NANCY JOYCE JANCOURTZ
Brooklyn
One Elector Could Tilt Election
In Josh Gerstein’s article about Richard Robb, West Virginia’s Republican elector, he gave a brief but interesting history of the “faithless electors” of the Electoral College. Unfortunately, he overlooked one of the most famous [“How One Elector Could Yet Tilt U.S. Election,” September 14, 2004, Page One].
In 1972, Roger Lea MacBride, a Republican elector from Virginia, declined to cast his electoral vote for the Republican nominee, Richard Nixon, and instead voted for the Libertarian Party ticket of John Hospers and Theodora (“Toni”) Nathan.
His decision not only brought the Libertarian Party to national attention but also earned a place in history by making Ms. Nathan the first woman ever to receive a vote in the Electoral College.
THOMAS AVERY
Brooklyn
‘Bill O’Reilly’s Odd Moment’
Although columnist Laura Ingraham was absolutely right in everything she wrote about the old news industry, she was wrong about “no spin”-meister Bill O’Reilly’s reaction being unexpected [“Bill O’Reilly’s Odd Moment,” Opinion, September 17, 2004]. His reaction was totally expected and totally in-sync with his usual commentary and interviewing style.
Mr. O’Reilly’s views are neither conservative nor liberal, nor fair-minded or biased. In fact, his so called views have nothing to do with substance or honesty, but rather ratings and self-promotion.
He exhibits, in every interview and “bloviating”- a favorite term of his – commentary, a superficial knowledge of the facts, and a lack of any moral consistency. His “no spin” tactics have nothing to do with getting to the truth, and everything to do with cultivating an image of an aggressive, righteous do-gooder, crusading for truth, justice, and fairness.
The problem is that Mr. O’Reilly’s lack of knowledge and moral conviction prevent him from identifying what’s right or fair – attributes he so prides himself on.
He attempts to exhibit fairness by simply taking the “unexpected” position, i.e., the position opposite to whatever viewers would expect from a so-called conservative talk-show host – irrespective of what a principled person would consider fair. His superficial tactics and fear of being labeled are certainly not the kind of things we need in this era of brave new press.
I’d much rather listen to the Sean Hannitys and Laura Ingrahams of the world, who have no problem in taking what they believe to be a principled stand, even if it alienates some of their listening public.
Whether I agree with them or not, it’s refreshing to hear knowledgeable people expressing strong and honest opinions, and to feel as informed and sometimes challenged, as I do after listening to their shows, but never after an O’Reilly show. Perhaps Mr. O’Reilly should follow the advice he gives to viewers interested in submitting e-mails and make some “pithy” comments of his own.
RONNI SHALIT
Manhattan
Please address letters intended for publication to the Editor of The New York Sun. Letters may be sent by e-mail to editor@nysun.com, facsimile to 212-608-7348, or post to 105 Chambers Street, New York City 10007. Please include a return address and daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited.
