Letters have been pro and con on baseball’s decision to pull the All-Star Game from Georgia ["Error by baseball on All-Star Game move," April 7].
Dissenters want to differentiate sports from politics, and supporters want intervention. Some want to prevent the players’ freedom to protest racial injustice by kneeling during the anthem, which also can be considered a form of reverence.
Baseball has been considered "America’s game." When baseball gave Jackie Robinson an opportunity to participate in a sport that excluded Blacks for years, no other national sport took such a stand for racial equality. Where would we be today if baseball did not have the courage to cross that line?
Tony Bruno, Babylon
Unfortunately, in my view, much of corporate America has capitulated to the entire "woke" farce.
Georgia’s governor employed common sense by passing stricter voting requirements, such as limiting time to mail absentee ballots, along with stricter absentee ID requirements.
Yells of discrimination came from the left, including President Joe Biden. Why? To me, the law is logical and designed to protect against voter fraud.
The Atlanta Braves received $400 million for a new stadium funded entirely by local taxpayers. How are these people thanked? By Major League Baseball moving this summer’s All-Star Game from Atlanta to Denver, a city with far fewer Blacks. Georgians had depended on revenue and jobs from the game.
It’s too bad that allegiance to people in local communities is forgotten when political pressure comes calling.
Marty Orenstein, New Hyde Park
To those upset with baseball for taking a stand about the All-Star Game and who think baseball should stay out of politics, what would be your position on baseball’s breaking the color line in 1947? Surely this was a moral and political issue just as the Georgia law is today.
It is deeply gratifying to see baseball today following the NBA in taking a stand on such an important issue as voting rights.
Bernard Klappersack, Glen Head
Gillibrand: I'm fighting to end SALT cap, too
I’m responding to Andrew Sparberg’s letter "Gillibrand should join SALT fight" [April 5]. When the Trump administration eliminated the state and local taxes deduction in order to repay wealthy donors and lobbyists with big corporate tax cuts, it hurt families on Long Island and across the state. I spoke out in opposition then, and have been pushing to restore the deduction ever since. I urged Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to repeal the elimination of the deduction during her confirmation process. And in January, I joined Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-Glen Cove) to introduce legislation to repeal the cap on the SALT deduction and provide direct relief to taxpayers.
Hardworking New Yorkers should not be targeted and made to pay the price for a tax giveaway to large corporations and billionaires — not during an economic crisis, not ever. I am committed to fighting for the best interests of New Yorkers and bringing fairness back to our tax system, and that starts with ending the SALT cap.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand,
Contrary to what Andrew Sparberg said in his letter, I say Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand should not endorse ending the SALT cap. There should be, in my view, a reasonable cap on the SALT deduction. I believe removing the cap subsidizes owners of McMansions while penalizing renters and other low-income individuals, depriving the federal government of much-needed revenue.
In addition, all of our legislators should support the much-needed infrastructure bill, which addresses many urgent needs and helps to address inequities between communities across the country, including right here.
Reps. Tom Suozzi and Kathleen Rice (D-Garden City) and Sen. Chuck Schumer, in my view, are demonstrating that they are DINOs — Democrats in name only — by taking their position on SALT. If they continue to do so, I will gladly support any true Democrats who primary them.
Suzanne Mueller, Great Neck
Schools don't need to teach democracy
Stephen Gessner criticizes the failure of schools to teach about democracy in his op-ed "Our schools fail to teach democracy," Opinion, April 7]. But I believe he misses the point.
The need is not for schools to teach "about" democracy, critical thinking and decision making. Students need to grow up practicing democracy, to be "in" democracy.
Obviously, the best way to prepare students to participate in a democracy is not to be subjected to 12 years of authoritarianism in schools.
In our current system, students get rewarded for doing what the teacher and the system tells them to do rather that initiating their own directions of learning, based on their interests. They do not grow up making decisions democratically about their education or their school.
It is important to note that the education revolution has just happened, thanks to remote learning. At one point, we went from less than 5% of students learning alternatively to more than 90%! Now, 50 million American families know they have choices.
Where will this lead? We don’t know, but we should make sure that it leads to a learner-centered, democratic experience for all children. This actually is practiced by more than 250 schools around the world and, for example, over 30 public democratic schools in Israel.
Jerry Mintz, Roslyn
Editor’s note: The writer is director of Alternative Education Resource Organization, based in Roslyn Heights.
It’s hypocritical to call cop videos incomplete
A reader complained that Newsday’s investigative report into abusive police behavior should not be trusted because the documentation of incidents was incomplete ["Reporters should ride with police," Letters, April 5]. What the reader failed to mention is that we don’t have complete documentation of police misconduct because Nassau and Suffolk counties are two of only three of the 50 largest police forces in the country that do not require body cameras. Blaming a lack of documentation when the police unions have aggressively fought this type of transparency, to me, is hypocritical.
The police unions’ actions, including obstructing transparency, demanding extra compensation for wearing required equipment, and defending indefensible behavior, have been a large factor in the erosion of public trust in the police. This is a bad thing for the public and every decent, dedicated police officer at work.
How could anyone defend the behaviors in this investigative report or the reality that these corrupt and violent officers retired, after abusing their authority, on generous, lifelong pensions paid for by the very people they abused?
Newsday had courage to investigate the consequences of having a powerhouse of a union denying public accountability of a crucial agency.
Cynthia Lovecchio, Glen Cove