Mobile Ad Space Above Posts

Monday, October 27, 2014

Choosing A NYC Kindergarten For Your Roosevelt Island Child Panel Discussion Sunday November 2 At Main Street Sweets, RSVP By October 30 - Also, Video Of Cornell Tech's Director Of K-12 Education Diane Levitt Speaking About Education Plans For PS/IS 217 And Other NYC Schools

Image of October 2013 Roosevelt Island Parents' Network Choosing A Kindergarten Panel Discussion

Are you a Roosevelt Island parent about to choose a kindergarten for your child? If so, this upcoming Roosevelt Island workshop is for you.

The Roosevelt Island Parents' Network, together with the Roosevelt Island Jewish Congregation and Main Street Sweets, will host their second free Choosing A Kindergarten Workshop 4 PM on Sunday November 2 at Main Street Sweets (559 Main Street). If you are interested in attending, please RSVP by October 30 via e-mail to michalmelamed@yahoo.com


Here's a report from the Roosevelt Island Parents' Network October 2013 Choosing A Kindergarten Panel discussion.

Also, some more Roosevelt Island education information. Last July 28, Cornell Tech's new Director of K-12 Education Jane Levitt spoke to the Roosevelt Island Cornell Community and Construction Task Force about plans for Cornell working with Roosevelt Island's PS/IS 217 and other NYC schools. Here's what Ms. Levitt had to say.





Remember to RSVP for the November 2 Choosing A Kindergarten Workshop.

70 comments :

CheshireKitty said...

When Ms. Helstein submitted her nomination to run for VP, she was heading up the Election Committee. Either she knew or she didn't know that under the RIRA Constitution, she cannot do both: Be on the Election Committee and run for VP. She thought she could circumvent this Constitutional provision by resigning her position as Election Committee Chair just as the WIRE, which included the names of those running for VP, including herself, was hitting residents' door-steps on the morning of 10/25. But the 10/25 resignation doesn't retroactively "justify" the fact that she filed to run for the VP position before she resigned, which is the only way her name could have appeared in the 10/25 issue of the WIRE. Thus, Ms. Helstein, who is also the current RIRA VP, violated an important provision of the RIRA Constitution: Some might call her action an illegality, others at least would characterize it as unethical.


Ms. Helstein's running for VP while she was Chair of the Election Committee and the conduct of her Election Committee responsibilities prior to her resignation, throws into question whether the voter can trust the RIRA election process as being conducted in a fair manner, because there were also secret Election Committee meetings held, organized by Ms. Helstein as Election Committee Chair, earlier in the year. RIRA is not a secret society, and RIRA meetings, both of the CC and of committees of the CC, are open to the public. However, only hand-picked Election Committee members were invited by Ms. Helstein to attend these meetings. Moreover, to prevent election fraud, the RIRA Constitution states that CC district delegates from at least 5 districts must be a part of/attend meetings of the Election Committee: However, this did not happen. These problems with the Election Committee preceded Ms. Helstein's submitting her nomination for VP while she was heading up the Election Committee.


It is no coincidence that it was after Ms. Helstein's actions with regard to conducting secret Election Committee meetings that also did not include CC Members from 5 election districts that little by little, CC Members began leaving the CC. Some of these folks were no doubt deeply offended by the way they, and by extension, the constituents in the district they represented, were, in effect, excluded each time they were not invited by Ms. Helstein to the meetings of the Election Committee, in violation of the principle that RIRA meetings are open to the public, and in violation of the specific RIRA Constitutional provision that members from at least 5 election districts must be present whenever the Election Committee meets; moreover, the notion itself of having secret meetings of any sort must have disgusted and alarmed them; consequently, and unsurprisingly, they left the CC rather than be associated with an organization that evidently allows secret meetings, including those of the Election Committee.

OldRossie said...

Vote Helstein for VP!!

CheshireKitty said...

I don't know about that: Helstein was the originator of the 10K fiasco. Maybe she did raise a lot of money for RIRA, but she also managed to lose the voting machine money and probably cause RIOC to stop letting RIRA make recommendations with regard the PPF. Great VP she's been. Those who want to see RIRA get destroyed on an ongoing basis should vote for Helstien.

Frank Farance said...

ONLY ONE PERSON ATTENDED RIRA PRES/VP DEBATES last night. Dozen-plus in total, minus RIRA candidates/spouses and WIRE staff (who were running the debate), left one person. With 4 minute opening statements (which took most of the time), it was over in about 35-40 minutes. About 4 questions were asked, 2 general, 1 poison question towards Sharon Pope, and 1 poison question towards Helen Chirivas. The two general questions were (paraphrased): "In RIRA, what have you done for your community?", and "If elected, what do you plan on doing?". Those same questions were asked the night before, in the Westview, Island House, and Rivercross candidates debates.

The poison question towards Sharon (which was three people asking separate questions consolidated into a question with two parts; paraphrased): In your term as RIRA President (1994?), how many people left?; when you advocated for diversity, how successful were you and name one rep who you encouraged to run for RIRA?

In the late 1990's Sharon Pope (then known as Nneka Pope) had rightly pointed out the lack of diversity, and many Common Council members really didn't want to hear her point back then. At the time, RIRA was an almost all-white organization, which was not reflective of the Island's demographics. That has changed gradually over the years, and certainly now it would not be considered an all-white organization.

The poison question toward Helen Chirivas was (paraphrased): When you were RIRA Housing Committee Chair, what programs did you put on? First, there is no requirement that the Housing Committee put on any programs, they coordinate concerns of tenant associations (that have Island-wide impact), and they advocate for Island-wide housing concerns (as Ms. Chirivas advocated for affordable housing). That question seemed to come from a Helstien supporter because Ms. Helstien helped put on a renters insurance fair a decade ago when she Housing Committee Chair.

Well, they got to debate for the attention of one resident.

At the Tuesday night debates for Westview, Island House, and Rivercross, it was about two dozen-ish people in total, but candidates outnumbered non-candidates.

YetAnotherRIer, maybe you're right "It's the RIRA. Nobody cares. It's like playing a board game with your children and you let them cheat here and there because it's all for good fun."

YetAnotherRIer said...

Are you surprised? I think not. The demography is changing on this island. And to be honest, the current RIRA (including you, Frank) is not a very attractive organization to be part of because of all the drama and lack of opportunity to actually be part of something productive.

RooseveltIslander said...

Well, there was game 7 of the World Series last night.


Any questions about the RIRA Constitution prohibiting Sherie Helstien from being a RIRA Vice President candidate because she served on RIRA Election Committee this election cycle?

OldRossie said...

wait wait wait, what is Helen Chirivas running for?

CheshireKitty said...

Nope. Everyone was very cordial and well-behaved. She was never confronted.

CheshireKitty said...

Guess. You are the smart one, Rossie: You tell me.

CheshireKitty said...

RIRA could have emphasized things that it does every year, such as the RI Day Activities, the Blood Drive, as well as the success of the 2013 anti-Guerra campaign, on election/nomination literature/publicity - so residents would have a reason to get involved and vote. But they didn't. I've never seen duller publicity, unfortunately - the result was zero interest in the election.


If you combine the boring publicity with the unremitting negative coverage in the WIRE - which prefers to dwell on the sensationalistic aspects of who is arguing with who rather than the actual discussions, votes, and resolutions that are passed, and submitted to RIOC and so forth, why would anyone be surprised that interest in the organization has dwindled to almost zero.

CheshireKitty said...

Come to think of it, it was odd that Ms. Helstien wasn't hit with any poison questions by the moderator, while the other two candidates were, repeatedly..

OldRossie said...

Helen, are you trash talking Helstien because you are a VP candidate yourself?

CheshireKitty said...

You mean, Kitty? Oh no, Kitty would never do that. Anyway, the above comment was a direct observation: Ms. Helstien was asked easy questions but her opponents were asked the poison questions.

OldRossie said...

Helen (aka CheshireKitty) is negative campaigning for a RIRA roll. That's pathetically low. That's like sabotaging the competition for a solo on the church choir...I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

CheshireKitty said...

How is pointing out the truth negative campaigning? How is whatever Cheshire Kitty says "campaigning" of any sort.


Let's not forget that Helstien chaired the Election Committee since June, 2014. Whatever the Election Committee is or isn't today, is a reflection of Helstien's efforts the past 5 months.



Meanwhile, another candidate for VP has raised questions about the circumstances of Helstien's candidacy - i.e. when exactly did Helstien file her nomination form? Was it before or after Helstien quit as Chair of the Election Committee? The Nominations Cttee Chair Aaron Hamburger has confirmed that Helstien did in fact violate the Constitution, in that he did receive the form before Ms. Helstien quit as Election Committee Chair. He has said in plain English that Ms. Helstien submitted the nomination form to him, and he accepted it in violation of the Constitution since he knew she was the Chair of the Election Committee and the Constitution doesn't allow the Chair of the Election Committee to run for VP, and that afterwards Ms. Helstien quit as Election Committee Chair. He justifies these Constitutional violations by saying that no-one else stepped forward to chair the Election Committee and so Ms. Helstien must be given a special break or consideration for taking on the work of organizing the election for the past 5 months, and allowed to run for VP even if the Constitution expressly forbids it.


Poison questions that should have been directed to Ms. Helstien such as asking Ms. Helstien to comment on the reason the Constitution doesn't allow the Chair of the Election Committee to run for President or Vice President, and then asking her to explain her own actions in doing just that while Chair of the Election Committee, and why the Nominations Committee accepted Ms. Helstien's VP nomination form while she was still the Election Committee Chair although this is specifically ruled out by the Constitution, and Ms. Helstien's whoppers with respect to the request for $10,000 in unrestricted funding from RIOC, a request which was turned down by RIOC once RIOC realized the request was filled with untruths) were not brought up by the moderator - probably because the moderator, just as everyone on the Election Committee, is a close friend of Ms. Helstien's - the one requirement for the people who were hand-picked by Election Committee Chair and VP candidate Helstien (as of 10/24/14) to be on the Election Committee.

OldRossie said...

Or, someone could read THAT latest comment to find Helen (aka CheshireKitty) negative campaigning against Helstien. Come on Helen, take responsibility for yourself for a change.

CheshireKitty said...

Rossie: It's not negative campaigning or even campaigning of any sort. It's merely Kitty, commenting.


Readers are free to draw their own conclusions. Some may feel the violation was a minor one, others may feel her 5-month involvement with the Election Committee as its Chair means she should be disqualified from running for VP. Either way, her name is on the ballot for the position of VP - and she has as much chance of winning or losing as any one else running.

SherieL said...

Again, from Farance, misinformation. Let's look at the pesky facts: Farance arrived at the meeting late, sat for 20 minutes, apparently blogging to you, neighbors, through the President/VP Candidates' Night. And then, when a neighbor entered the room he has had a history of problems with, he departed the meeting before it was over! He has herein reported that one person attended. In fact there were about 25-35 people in attendance at our President/Vice President Candidates' Night. Those are the facts.

SherieL said...

"Ms. Helstien helped put on a renters insurance fair a decade ago when she Housing Committee Chair." Actually, Farance has this wrong: In fact, I organized the event and was able to book the State Insurance Commissioner as a speaker at this event!

SherieL said...

Nothing "odd" here. Most people who know me, know my accomplishments in the community. Apparently they didn't have any knowledge of Ms. Chirivas' and thus asked an appropriate question.

Frank Farance said...

Ms. Helstien: You've misread what I wrote, I stand correct: "ONLY ONE PERSON ATTENDED RIRA PRES/VP DEBATES last night. Dozen-plus in
total, minus RIRA candidates/spouses and WIRE staff (who were running
the debate), left one person."

I arrived at 7:02, Linda Heimer was talking. I sat and listened and took notes on my laptop (not blogging, but what would be wrong with that anyway?). I left because there were no more questions for the candidates, not because someone entered the room (really, me leaving because someone entered the room?). When I left, I looked back and there were three rows of people 4 across, plus Mr. Escobar and his wife on left, plus one person in a motorized scooter near the doorway, plus three VP candidate, plus 2 WIRE staff off to the right side, plus one CC member. That's 21 people, and when you subtract the WIRE staff, RIRA CC candidates and spouses, that leaves one person, which was Mogens.

YetAnotherRIer said...

And YOU running for the same position and publicly commenting negatively on your opponent is negative campaigning.

CheshireKitty said...

Remember, you are addressing Kitty. But as an Island resident, whether or not I'm on the CC or a candidate, there is nothing that prevents me from pointing out contradictions.


I've pointed out contradictions with regard Frank for several years; So it's OK if I oppose Frank but it's not OK if I oppose Sherie and her friends? Isn't that a bit hypocritical, Yet?


I'm running against Frank too, in IH - and have commented negatively about him on the blog on various topics since about 2011. That's OK, but it's not OK for me to offer my opinion on Sherie?

YetAnotherRIer said...

You are running for VP. If you don't see a difference then nobody can help you.

OldRossie said...

You're right, we can't help Helen Chirivas on many levels... but we can help the island by voting for ANYONE else. Honestly, I dont care who. Just not Helen Chirivas.

CheshireKitty said...

Like anyone cares what you think, Rossie: The yuppie par excellence. The dude who would deny the poor and downtrodden affordable medical care and affordable housing. The heartless one. Those who agree with Rossie on screwing the 99%, vote for anyone else - because Chirivas is exactly opposed to the heartlessness and cruelty espoused by Rossie and those who favor the 1%.

CheshireKitty said...

It isn't negative campaigning - it isn't campaigning of any sort. I've said everything that can be said. To say it again is repetitive at this point. The arcane details of the circumstances of Sherie's candidacy I'm sure very few people actually care about - the election will not be decided based on when she did or didn't file her nomination form. If people's decisions were based on bureaucratic fine points, then everything we ever did in our lives that might be considered a "transgression" - doing anything late, or even arriving at work late, or failing a class in JHS because we were late more than 5 times. So many things could be held against us if the strictest standards of rectitude were applied.


It may be that Ms. Pope wins this year, or Ms. Chirivas, or Mr. Pathak. There's no way of knowing, so we should just sit back and let Election Day unfold as it will, let the chips fall where they may.

KTG said...

Bigger problem is fact she posts under an alias pretending that she is an independent voice.

SherieL said...

No one but Frankie counts for anything... hilarious reasoning! LOL.

OldRossie said...

Wow Helen Chirivas, that’s a very defensive comment! How would such a tone play into the VP
position? Does Helen Chirivas stereotype
everyone that disagrees with her into an ugly bucket? Why will Helen Chirivas not acknowledge her
blogger name CheshireKitty? Is it
because Helen Chirivas attempts to use ’CheshireKitty’ to say things she doesn't
want to say publicly; or is it because of a bipolar disorder? In either case, I don’t think Helen Chirivas
is a good candidate for public office.

OldRossie said...

it took me so long to try and phase what you just said... thank you. :)

OldRossie said...

Hey Ms. Helstien! I have a question as a voter: How do you feel about community leaders and representatives using public blogs?

CheshireKitty said...

You, Yet, Old Rossie and everyone else who posts anonymously should talk. Oh, so it's OK for your to post under an alias but others to do so?


I am a mere Kitty, I've repeatedly said it. Why do you use a handle, KTG, instead of your name?


Why is a problem for me to use a handle but not for you to use one?

CheshireKitty said...

LOL. Way to go, Dr. Rossie! Nope - I'm afraid I don't carry that dx of mental illness, although you may!


Why should Kitty reveal anything about her private life, as a feline? It is nobody's business who is Kitty, and where Kitty lives, and so forth.


You cannot tie Kitty to Chirivas. No matter what the rumors may be, there is no way to do so.


Why would a voter not wish to vote for someone who is for the down-trodden - if Kitty were a candidate.


I think you need to re-examine your attitude toward the populace, rather than Kitty say nice things about folks who would take advantage or exploit others. The world is changing, and not in the way you would want. There is such a thing as popular political power - as exemplified in the most recent Mayoral election - trumping the 1% (BB) or their clones (Lhota,Quinn). Sometimes, the establishment loses.

CheshireKitty said...

Although there was not a large turnout, which was (ruefully/humorously) remarked upon by the candidates at one point, I disagree that there was only 1 person not connected in some way to the RIRA election there. Although most of the audience did consist of those already connected in some way to RIRA, I would say there were probably between 5-10 people who were not connected to RIRA in attendance. Of course, that too is way too low a number.


Actually, the number of people who attended the Tues 10/28 Candidate Night meeting at WV for WV candidates *was* actually zero, since the only person who showed up was Matt, Sherie's husband. Now that really was incredible - and inexplicable, since a number of people from the other buildings (IH & RC) did show up that night. Why WV residents seem to "not care" and residents of the other buildings seem interested, is a mystery.

CheshireKitty said...

Why shouldn't people in RIRA such as Frank or Sherie comment in blogs? Or would you prefer they use a handle?

OldRossie said...

It is ok for us to go by "handles", Helen Chirivas (aka CheshireKitty) because we are not candidates - we are merely residents.

OldRossie said...

Sorry, but a fictitious cat certainly wasn't present. which makes this input meaningless. Unless you're Helen Chirivas.

OldRossie said...

People in RIRA such as Frank and Sherie SHOULD comment in blogs, and DO! Sorry, who are you?

CheshireKitty said...

Hold on there, Old Rossie. One could ask the very same question of you: Who are you?

CheshireKitty said...

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. So why do you use a handle?

CheshireKitty said...

The Cheshire Cat has the advantage of invisibility, according to the Carroll story. Thus, the Kitty could have been there, but not as a cat. Even so, anyone is allowed to comment - even a Kitty.

YetAnotherRIer said...

"because Chirivas is exactly opposed to the heartlessness and cruelty espoused by Rossie and those who favor the 1%"


And none of this has any meaning if you keep the ChesireKitty vs Chirivas charade going. Politically I am on your side in general but you would never get my vote because of your demeanor on this blog.

YetAnotherRIer said...

"You cannot tie Kitty to Chirivas. "


Let's try something new. ChesireKitty, is the real person behind your handle Helen Chirivas?

KTG said...

I use my initials rather than my name,fair point. However I really don't post random accusations of racism, class oppression or anti-semitism either. If I did I would have conviction to be open about who I am. If I was campaigning for an office I would also disclose that openly in my post.

CheshireKitty said...

That is your opinion - if you think institutionalized racism does not exist, that your opinion. Class oppression? I'm not about to start a long discourse on that topic, but it's a well-known fact that there is extreme income inequality resulting in a hyper-concentration of wealth in top layer of households, together with wide-spread exploitation of workers, such as the Walmart employees. I pointed out recently that the CEO of Wal-Mart has recognized the terrible PR resulting from thousands of full-time Wal-Mart employees qualifying for Food Stamps i.e. their pay puts them in the Federal poverty zone, and McMillon - the CEO - has announced that wages finally will be raised. I do think that paying employees a wage that qualifies them for Food Stamps is exploitative and oppressive, and I suppose even McMillion has arrived at that conclusion since he is acting to correct the problem.


I don't believe I called anybody an anti-Semite - although I've been called overly pro-Jewish myself, since I have always steadfastly stood up for the State of Israel. I suppose I'm somewhat conservative that way - not "progressive" enough for some people. Too bad. This will not change.


There are unfortunately anti-Semites - they should be struggled against IMO. I identify with the struggle of the State of Israel to survive. Anybody want to attack me on my pro-Jewish stance, go right ahead; it won't change.


So, politically I'm straight-up liberal, and very much a supporter of Israel. As the laws say, we should struggle against all forms of racism including anti-Semitism. It is my belief that extreme income inequality stems from exploitation and oppression. Others can ascribe income inequality to other reasons.

KTG said...

Another pointless diatribe, I did not deny their existence simply said you accuse people of these things when they disagree with you.


And in fact I first time I noticed your outlandish rants when you unjustly accused Mark of antisemitism prior summer. Just a quick point he posts under his name but you hide under an alias. Proving my point show some conviction at least be proud enough to own your statements.


Probably lack of personal conviction is reason you won't be won't win your race Helen.

CheshireKitty said...

Let's look at what you are saying, carefully: First, you are making an accusation you cannot back up. I say alot of things, and throw the kitchen sink at conservatives, but none of it is (a) "random" (b) unjustified - if they are heartless yuppies for example. Or supporters of the 1%. People can always attack me for supporting the 99% - and throw the kitchen sink at me. I don't stop them from doing so.
What you call "outlandish rants" others may call appropriately opposing those who feel things such as extreme income inequality, or disappearing affordable housing, or the displacement of hundreds of thousands of moderate-income residents as a result of gentrification, are all OK.


I certainly am opposed to racist and anti-Semitic comments, and will say so. Mocking Ms. Goldberg? Did Mark's comment smack of being an anti-Semitic remark? Mocking Ms. Goldberg because she's an elderly Jewish person who disclosed her fears of unsafe cyclists?


I thought Mark disrespected her - and the implication was she was a doddering "wacko" - perhaps the criticism suggested she was demented or over the hill. I would say I'm ultra-sensitive to possible insults to minorities, the aged, or the disabled, and will rush to defend them, if they are seemingly being picked on because of their being a minority, or aged, or disabled. It was maybe too easy to point at Ms. Goldberg and not only disagree with her views, but to suggest she was a "old wacko" for having those views. She was maybe an easy target, as an older person.


It's not "outlandish" to oppose this form of subtle discrimination - mocking an older person because we may disagree with their views.


Of course, anyone, not just Mark, can say these things or make remarks that come across as disparaging, it's a free country after all. If I happen to see them in a blog or set of comments, I can also say things to defend the minority, aged, or disabled person.


There's nothing "outlandish" about defending these population groups, that are often picked on.


In fact there are many laws on the books which serve to protect the rights of minorities, the aged, the disabled, and so forth.


Thus, I do not think I was doing anything wrong in defending Ms. Goldberg from Mark. I believe he was suggesting Ms. Goldberg was "over-the-hill" or "wacky" for being so opposed to cyclists - however, it's certainly her right to be opposed to unsafe cyclists, which is what she was complaining about. It doesn't make her "wacky" and plenty of non-aged people share her views on unsafe cyclists. Her age has nothing to do with her views on unsafe cyclists.


We see since then, with the recent fatalities in Central Park of Schacter http://nypost.com/2014/08/14/elderly-jogger-killed-by-cyclist-was-longtime-physics-teacher/ and Tarlov http://www.planetizen.com/node/71394, that Ms. Goldberg wasn't exactly exaggerating the dangers of unsafe bicyclists to pedestrians.

OldRossie said...

Amazing. Somehow it's reverted to race, religion, income... You are Helen Chirivas pretending not to be so you don't have to take responsibility for your comments. End of story.

KTG said...

another off the mark rant.

CheshireKitty said...

No, KTG, you are the one that refuses to engage in a rational discussion. Instead, you characterize those who are opposed to extreme income inequality, and many other injustices, as engaging in "ranting."


Characterizing your opposition as engaging in "ranting" is exactly how dissent was handled in Soviet Russia: Those who disagreed with the prevailing ideology would be sent to either a prison camp (gulag) or a psychiatric hospital so they could be cured of their anti-Soviet views.


You see my support of things you dislike such as affordable housing and health-care, paying a living wage, and so forth, as "ranting" - not so different from the attitude of the Soviet commissars to any opposition, right comrade KTG?

CheshireKitty said...

OldRossie: You can only make that judgment once you remove your mask of anonymity - and I doubt you'll ever do that. Thus, who are you to judge?

KTG said...

No. I characterize people who go off on wild diatribes as irrational, there is no economic/race/class implications involved.

CheshireKitty said...

There are always economic/race/class implications involved, KTG. You are not living in a Pollyana "best of all possible" worlds. The proof of that is today's glaring income inequality, which leads many times to poverty, even for folks who are working full-time, such as the hundreds of thousands of Wal-Mart and fast-food workers.


Hey look: You have a right to opposed to a discussion of the social problems of today. I have a right to suggest ways of correcting the social problems of today. It isn't a wild diatribe to discuss things like income inequality, or institutionalized racism. If you think I engage in wild diatribes in doing so, I suppose you would have to say the same thing about many politicians including Pres. Obama, Gov. Cuomo, or Mayor de Blasio. I'm not really saying anything these guys don't say.


So, do you think Obama, Cuomo, and de Blasio also engage in wild diatribes when they decry income inequality and so forth, because you disagree with them, and can't bear to hear opposing points of view?


If so, maybe you should move to North Korea, where you will be "soothed" by just hearing the pro-regime line over an over again, with no opposition allowed, no dissent allowed. Oh, and if there is dissent, N. Korea has its own gulag system and network of psychiatric hospitals for any dissenters. I suppose you would find that very "comforting" as well.

Mark Lyon said...

I don't know Ms. Goldberg. Is that name just a placeholder in your mind for people of Jewish ancestry?

I mocked you by comparing you to Dorothy Rabinowitz - a member of the WSJ Editorial board - who shares, without shame, some of your wrongheaded views on NYC's bike share program ( http://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-death-by-bicycle/C6D8BBCE-B405-4D3C-A381-4CA50BDD8D4D.html ). Ms. Rabinowitz needs no cover from you, nor (even as wrong as she is about the Bike Share program) is she offended by someone referencing her by her name.



I meant no disrespect toward Ms. Rabinowitz, as I explained very clearly at the time. While I initially intended my comment to be disrespectful to your views, I'm also now perfectly happy accepting that you took it as a personal attack as well.


It continues to amaze me, though, how offended you were to be compared to her.

YetAnotherRIer said...

"... in a rational discussion."


Maybe you should look back at your comment history and notice how you turn everything into an irrational pile of nonsense.

CheshireKitty said...

At least you admit you were mocking her - an older Jewish woman who does not share your views on Bike Share. Also, I'm not necessarily against Bike Share - I am opposed to unsafe cycling. There's a difference.


I'll change her name to Rabinowitz - obviously her name or the tape, or discussing same with you is not something I'm too concerned about remembering! Do you really think most people spend their time remembering what they say on this or any other blog? I enjoy commenting on the internet as a pastime or hobby. How could it be anything but as a cat?

CheshireKitty said...

I disagree that my comments are irrational. I think they are hard-hitting, polemic comments, that often expose hypocrisy, which is why they make the target of my attacks uncomfortable. If what I was saying wasn't somewhat true, you and the others would ignore them. But you don't.


I only comment if I get little email announcements that there is a reply to something I've said. If you think my comments are nonsense or irrational, why do you answer?
It is you who cannot handle the contradictions in your thinking and resort to irrationality. I point out facts - such as the fact of income inequality, the existence of institutional racism, the need for a living wage if people who are employed full-time as fast food workers (for example) still qualify for Food Stamps, and the need for much more affordable housing, and so forth, that you have no way to argue against.


You are in this way forced to defend your conservative views, but your views are not based on facts, whereas mine are.


I'm a steadfast liberal, but you are not. That's fine; as long as there are conservatives and liberals, there will be discussions, which is great for me since I enjoy discussions. Moreover, discussions and disagreements, oftentimes vehement disagreements, are what politics is all about. Also, if we all agreed on everything, what a dull place the world would be, right? Thank goodness I and people like me, don't agree with you or people of your ilk (conservatives).


We should agree to disagree and leave it at that.

YetAnotherRIer said...

And the fact that she is Jewish has absolutely nothing to do with this. This is something YOU added to this discussion. Mark would have made the same comment about her and you if she were a he and white.

YetAnotherRIer said...

So, adding race to virtually everything you comment on is not an irrational thing to do?

CheshireKitty said...

The same question can be asked of you. If you are so keen on disclosure, and disclose who you are.

CheshireKitty said...

I don't add race to everything I comment on. I didn't add race to the discussion of bike safety, or Motorgate cameras, or food truck permitting, or any number of prior topics. But, racism is still stubbornly embedded in the nations ethos unfortunately despite the tons of legislation enacted, and educational efforts to ensure equality and foster brotherhood. Maybe the UPK program will make a difference - in giving kids even more of a head start in school, instilling a love of learning in them.

CheshireKitty said...

Fine, whatever you say. He would have been as disrespectful and mocking if she was non-Jewish but just *merely* elderly - the implication or slur in that case stemming from ageism. Is that OK? I don't think either way it's OK - and of course I'll defend her from those that would mock her, whether or not I agree with her. As it happens I think the Bike Share program is good, but unsafe cyclists are bad (to put it simply). So I agree with those who decry unsafe cyclists, but agree with those who wish to foster bicycling, as long as cyclists and pedestrians do not get killed in the process.


The sense I got was that he picked on her because she was elderly or felt her views were extreme. I never called Mark a Jew-hater or anti-Semite in connection with that discussion, or any other time. But I am sensitive to minorities and the elderly being picked on, so if there was a mocking tone in his remarks, which there was, of course I jumped all over his comments.

OldRossie said...

Easy answer: NOT a person running for a position to represent island residents...

CheshireKitty said...

What makes you think other reps do not comment anonymously?


Also: I should explain why I first got involved in RIRA - to fight the owner on unfair sub metering @ RL. I later found out about other housing-related issues such as the problem with the Sec 8 tenants being unable to transfer to LAP and so forth. I was recommended/sent to join RIRA by the then head of the RLRA, the late Ms. Fontes, to enlist RIRA's help. Once that project was successfully completed - under the following head of the RLRA the then-Ms. Mincheff, there was no reason for me to stay on. My interests then were purely tenant-oriented, and building-oriented. I gradually found out about other issues and things RIRA does and even later than that found out about issues in IH.


There's no reason I can't find out more and do more. I did OK without any campaign or Statement or name recognition for VP. However, considering why I originally got involved - to alert the RL tenancy about unfair sub metering, and to try to stop it, that goal was accomplished.

KTG said...

You actual did and instead of apologizing as you should have over a year ago,. now you are talking about ageism. To my point any one who disagrees with you is made subject to some negative categorization.

http://www.mainstreetwire.com/archive/24-web-extras/109-chirivas-premise-accusing-new-rira-president-and-the-wire-is-faulted

http://old.nyc10044.com/wire/3413/editorial.htm

YetAnotherRIer said...

Whoa. Please reread your comments from the past and get back to us. You added her being Jewish to the discussion. You, and only you. Nobody else.

YetAnotherRIer said...

Racism is real in this country, yes. Seeing racism in everything you disagree with is something you should get some help with.

CheshireKitty said...

As long as racism remains a problem, there's no helping me or millions of others worldwide who oppose it. I shall remain opposed to racism as long as racism exists. You will have to kill me in order to kill my opposition to racism, because I'll never drop it. The same goes for anti-Semitism: As long as it exists, I'll oppose it.


I oppose overt or subtle forms of racism or anti-Semitism. If you or anyone else doesn't like it, ignore my posts. No-one is making you reply back to me. If you think racism or anti-Semitism is OK, or, should not be opposed in all its forms, overt, subtle, or merely obliquely suggested, and I'm wrong to oppose these manifestations of racism, then don't reply back.

CheshireKitty said...

Wasn't the reference to an older Jewish lady a mocking reference? I may or may not agree with her views on cycling but it was hitting below the belt to mock her - and to use that mockery to mock my views, especially since Mark knows I'm rather pro-Jewish.


Mark's reference was meant to offend - and in that he succeeded. I jumped all over his comments, as he expected.


I'm about 20 years older than him. Did he really expect me to sit back and enjoy a good laugh at an elderly lady's expense? He knows all this about me and he knows his reference would have struck a nerve, even if he hadn't intended to mock her as a Jew, but rather intended to mock her as being in his consideration a "wacko" anti cycling nut who also happened to be elderly and also happened to be Jewish.


Well, some New Yorkers are wary of the South, even in this day and age. They may take offense of some from that area speaking disparagingly of Jews since there is still a problem of Antisemitism in the South, or at least a tendency for intolerance in Bible Belt, against those who may not be WASPs or some Christian denomination.


He must have known I would have taken offense otherwise he wouldn't have put the reference up - he intended to offend me, which he did. I doubt if his intention was anything but that - he was likening me to an elderly Jewish lady who in his view held ridiculously anti-cyclist views. Since I'm pro-Jewish and anti-ageist, what did he expect me to do? Laugh along? He probably enjoys "flaming" people - so he succeeded in getting a predictable vehement response from me. You really expect me to believe he was "hurt" by my rebuttal? LOL.


There was also the suggestion that he's insulting New Yorkers in general - even if he was a New Yorker himself; that is, he was insulting the "eccentric" New Yorkers who are from NY, as opposed to the more "rational" New Yorkers who adopt NY - the people from the boonies who feel they may know better than New Yorkers may tend to mock New Yorkers from NY. This is another strongly held view of New Yorkers from NY, that nobody is going to tell us what to do or tell us what's best for our city, because we really are the most knowledgeable ones about the City having put up with it all our lives etc etc. Of course that's another myth, as very often it's immigrants or migrants to the City who get insights into problems of city living that the "regulars" may not hit upon, having grown inured to various aspects of city life. The truth is the city is constantly renewed with the energy and fresh insights of newcomers.


So, really, the person who should explain what they were doing and how they meant it is Mark. But the entire discussion by now is only of interest to very few on the thread, those who care to score points one way or another: Either to "damage" me or my friends, or to "damage" Mark and his friends. No-one else really cares because it's only a blog, and we're all commenting anonymously anyway. The discussion has about as much "import" or significance to most readers as guessing the number of Tootsie Rolls in a jar.

Mobile Ad Space Below Posts