Monday, October 21, 2013

Roosevelt Island Ghosts, Ghouls and Goblins Coming Out For Main Street Halloween Parade Saturday October 26 - What Will You Be Wearing?


You're invited to the annual Roosevelt Island Halloween Day Parade. According to the Roosevelt Island Operating Corp (RIOC):
Come out to Roosevelt Island's annual Halloween Day Parade for some spooky and FREE family-friendly fun! The parade takes place Saturday, October 26th, from 12 PM to 3 PM. We invite you to come to Blackwell House (500 Main St.) in costume and join the community as we march up Main Street. A completely free Halloween celebration will follow - explore an array of Halloween-related booths; enjoy treats, games, rides and much more. Don't miss out - come celebrate Halloween in style!

For more information, contact Angela Fallar at 212-838-4747.

Sponsored by Urban American, Roosevelt Island Youth Program & Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation.

Sincerely,

Roosevelt Island Operating Corp Advisories Group
Here are some scenes from the 2010 Roosevelt Island Halloween Parade.

8 comments :

commonsense540 said...

This a great event every year and its free and everyone comes, great way to bring community together!!!!

Bill Blass said...

Mean little rich girl. Rachel sacks she is the new face of the island.

CheshireKitty said...

Let's get the story straight: Sacks was out shopping, and had a shopping bag stuffed with merch she had just bought at a pricey emporium, Mulberry. At a later stop to pick up food, a checkout girl unkindly eyed the bag. To me, that was the first "mistake". Who cares what people buy and what they have in their shopping bags? It was of course rude of the check-out girl to eye the bag. In response to the affront, or perceived affront, Sacks decided to make herself into an "internet celebrity" by publicizing the incident in such a way that she turned out to be the un-PC, notorious, mean one - thus drawing the attention and ire of the world, that she (supposedly of the 1%) could possibly speak so poorly of the checkout girl (evidently of the 99%).


Sacks succeeded in her quest for media attention, even hitting the front page of the Post.


The story apparently captured the zeitgeist of the times: An example of income disparity, perhaps the obliviousness, even, one might say, social cruelty, of the rich who seem to have "invaded" NYC etc.


A point to note: NYU students of rich families have always been known to be somewhat wet behind the ears. It is totally unsurprising that Sacks comes off as a bit of a brainless, spoiled brat. You would never find a Columbia student acting that way, or one from Cooper. Sacks' story is yet another example of NYU undergrad students' supposed shallowness and mediocrtiy.


However, I ask you: Although Sacks exploited the story for her own purposes, who was right and who was wrong in the story itself? The checkout clerk must daily see shoppers swinging by with shopping bags. By now, she must have realized that some have the means to shop.


If she is at all "envious" of people who can shop, then that is her problem. The clerk may have been having a bad day, or some other problem, to have taken out her "frustration" or "resentment" on a customer, even obliquely or subtly, which is what apparently happened.


Also - as far as business is concerned, it is not smart to alienate customers.


Most people would simply ignore rudeness or perceived rudeness from check-out clerks, fast-food clerks, store clerks at upscale department stores, or even "superior" wait staff at fancy restaurants. Most people deal with and quickly forget minor, inane brushes with rudeness.


Sacks, however, decided to use the trivial non-story to draw a firestorm of probably much-wanted attention, even if it was negative attention. You can see she is of moderate looks, doesn't have clear skin, or much of anything in particular going for her physically. The notoriety of her having acted in such an un-PC way, will get her attention - since it shows that, stupidly or not, she is willing to play a hand (of some kind) to get attention. If she wants to pull guys, or girls if she's gay, doing something so "rebellious" will ensure a supply of dates.


Loneliness, or just plain old boredom, was probably what was behind Sacks publicizing her so-called "bad" experience with the supermarket checkout clerk.

Bill Blass said...

Kitty the story about that young black man in Barney on madison ave.well racist is alive and well in America.

CheshireKitty said...

Oh, yeah, definitely racism, and profiling. Somebody should probably organize a boycott of Barneys: Demand Barneys apologize to the guy and also pay an amount to be determined in damages. He is rightly suing both Barneys and the NYPD for the false arrest. Read the sickening story here: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/barneys-accused-stealing-black-teen-article-1.1493101

OldRossie said...

I'm not saying one way or another. BUT: if a white kid walks into Barneys with a camo jacket 10 sizes too big, baseball hat on sideways, jeans around his knees underwear exposed, stripes shaved into his hair, and speaking... lets say in a less than formal manner... and trying to buy a $300 belt, would it be so crazy for the employee to think it's a stolen bank card? Forget race for a minute, the way these kids present themselves rightfully makes a lot of people skeptical. The race card flies around because it's a better story. Note: my description is of this kid, and the rapper he is trying to emulate with the belt.

PearlMama said...

Although my response comes a year later, but I find it funny, you would say that, considering the fact that the Island was orignially created to house prisoners and those residing in asylums; it wasn't originally created to house the rich. I suppose that since you've parked your BMW on Main Street all these many years, this entitles you to cosign on the less-than-thought-out post above, which advocates the "doing away with" those of lower-income? There may be truth to the claim that there are many vacant units in the Mitchell-Lama program...which, can inadvertantly be used under the Section 8 program (Mitchell-Lama and Section 8 NOT being the same program). But doesn't it also count that a person of lower income may not want to live in the run-down neighborhoods where lower-income housing is present, simpy because they earn a lower wage? Contrary to popular belief, not all lower wage-earners deficate, soil or otherwise rip apart where they live. A greater deal of that assistance comes from thosse outside of the neighbrhood, usually gangs. Get your head out of your arse! Any person earning a lower wage deserves the chance to live comfortably (comfortably, being in a neighborhood that is clean and features housing that is aethetically pleasing and much more sanitary, as opposed to dealing with conditions that are severly unsanitary; buildings laced with grime, along with the constant drug issues in the projects, for exampe). Most people in this situation want the chance to have better. For some, having better inspires folks to push to improve their circumstances because they are then able to see what its really like living on both sides of the fence, where living in poorer conditions no longer serves as a crutch, but a motivation. But then here we are in the program, where cigar-piping idiots whine and complain about the poor living off of the system. There is a great deal to be said about a person who wants to raise their children in an environment that feels as though it is a step away from the depression of the poverty-stricken apartment units usually found in the inner city; living in housing that is least likely to feature urine in the stairwells, vermin patrolling the halls and gang-related tagging all over the walls. Regardless of income, any person wishing to live in an environment that offers the opportunity to live "comfortably" (again, comfortably being in a nice building, in a nice neighborhood, or much better than what is usally offered to the poor) and though the rich can easiy afford it, the poor shoud not be excluded. Just because one is poor, it does not mean that they are less as an individual. The greater majority of the poor does not seek out handouts. They prefer to work and do better for themselves, if given the RIGHT tools (for example, Wefare-to-Work is not one of these "tools" that effectivey helps recipients move rom the wefare rolls into the workforce because there is no forma job training, there is no formal listing within a larger spectrum of job sectors and because it only allows recipients who wish to obtain, or rather NEED to obtain a college education for advancement in the workforce to obtain an Associate Degree. Benefits are cut off if any degree higher than that of a two-year, Associate Degree is pursued. This inlcudes childcare, cash benefits, food stamps and assistance with rent). Some are obviously wise enough to take advantage of what government programs that WILL help them (Section 8, Mitchell-Lama) in order to transform them into stepping stones. Honestly, no one appreciates the sentiment of having to step over feces in the elevator upon returning home from work! Learn compassion...become open-minded...and educate yourself on the real plight of the poor before you jump on another's bandwagon in agreement. Obviously, this person had no knowedge of what they were speaking of and in agreeing with them, you've made yourself look foolish!

OldRossie said...

Your post makes it very clear that everyone - poor or otherwise - wants a nice place to live. but it says nothing about who needs to pay for that.