Officials have better things to do than worry about food truck
Re Aug. 28 editorial, "Fight over food truck name taken too far": The cancelling of a food truck "rodeo" smacks of pure discrimination if it is true that the reason for the cancellation was the "Wandering Dago" food truck.
Personally, I prefer choice. I've heard great things about the "dago" food truck and the food that is served from it.
I'm dismayed that it was not allowed at the Saratoga track, as well as the lunchtime choice of state workers in Albany. As if upper-echelon state employees know any better than the rest of us!
With so many other important issues to concern ourselves with in our daily lives, why concentrate on only one business that puts out a good product and has much support in the Capital Region?
It's true the name "dago" may be offensive. But isn't graffiti vandalism that is all around us just as bothersome and even more of an eyesore through the city?
No one at Metroplex, or the Chamber of Commerce, or DSIC [Downtown Schenectady Improvement Corp.], or City Hall has said boo about this biggest quality-of-life issue facing Schenectady today.
Also, what about the 800-plus vacant and trashed buildings that surround the city? This is a persistent problem that hasn't been taken care of for several years.
Since Mr. [Metroplex Authority Chairman Ray] Gillen is working at Metroplex, which is funded by a sales tax that Schenectady County residents help support, he should be looking at the liability of Mr. [developer Christopher] Maddalone and his refusal to acknowledge and do anything about the debacle he created for the Union Inn [July 25 Gazette].
Shouldn't he be stopped from doing any further work in the city until he resolves his liability problem?
Stop playing "gotcha" and let the Wandering Dago wander throughout the Capital Region, like any other honest business, to sell its product.
Pro-choice advocates needn’t be so intolerant
Re the Aug. 25 letter from Cynthia Swanson: Is it really necessary to vilify a group of people you don't agree with simply because they have deeply held moral beliefs?
Those of us who are pro-life have three resolute truths that we will not back down from:
1) All humans are endowed by their creator with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
2) Life begins at conception.
3) Without life, there can be no liberty or pursuit of happiness.
There is one more thing that we hold very dear, and that is the First Amendment and our religious liberty; the freedom to practice our religion without government intervention.
That becomes impossible when the federal and state governments try to infringe upon that right and dictate to religious organizations who oppose abortion (and contraception) that they must provide insurance to cover these things.
We are not "right-wing wackos." We are people of faith who answer to a higher power, and who will not be bullied by an oppressive government or by intolerant people who choose to call us names because they disagree with us.
Ms. Swanson plainly stated, there is a "difference between mourning a wanted child and an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy."
For those us who believe that all life is sacred, there is no difference.
She goes on to impugn Kathleen Gallagher for her [Aug. 19] remarks, which were right in line with church teaching.
It is indeed Ms. Gallagher's business as director of pro-life activities for the state Catholic Conference to advocate for the unborn.
You may not agree, Ms. Swanson, but you do not have the right to silence those of us who believe in the right to life and who defend the lives of unborn children who cannot yet speak for themselves.
The writer is the pastoral associate for Intergenerational Faith Formation at Our Lady of Fatima in Delanson.
Obama must resist the temptation to attack Syria
Of course, we are all outraged about the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government against rebel forces. But our outrage is not sufficient grounds to take military action at this time. It is just not in our national interest.
We do not even have any plainly stated objectives, and the consequences of such action are uncertain and possibly dire.
At one end of the spectrum, we could topple [President Bashar] Assad, who is obviously a bad guy for using chemical weapons.
But there are no good guys in this conflict.
As we have seen in other Middle East countries, toppling Assad could easily lead to rule there by avowed terrorists, our sworn enemies.
But toppling Assad would take a show of force that is well outside the level of commitment of the current U.S. regime.
It is more likely that we would just fire a few missiles and incite Assad or his allies to retaliate against the United States or its friends, resulting in casualties to people and property not currently involved in the conflict, which could result in further escalation by both sides, and all to soothe our outraged spirit.
Wars should be based on sterner stuff.
I would suggest that we just swallow our outraged spirit at this time, admit that sometimes some of us shoot from the lip when we should be thinking strategically, let them fight it out in Syria until there are none left standing if need be, and save our indignation and might until some time and some place where we have a policy, and where U.S. interests are really at stake.