Dear Editor:
I agree that there are many problems with a permanent Daylight Saving Time, and that it probably shouldn’t be implemented. However, Izzo Zwiren’s assertion that we should instead switch to permanent standard time makes no sense, as doing so would cause significant issues with z’manim for davening.
Sof Z’man K’rias Sh’ma would get as early as 8:09 a.m. (Gra) or 7:33 (Magen Avraham), and Sof Z’man T’filah would get as early as 9:24 a.m. (Gra). This would spell the end of 9:00 Shacharis minyanim on Shabbos, at least from most of April through October. Even davening at 8:45 on Shabbos would be problematic for most of May, June, and July. Also, if you like getting up late on Sundays or legal holidays, or even Shabbos morning, you would have to get up by 8:00 (or 7:30) to avoid missing a chiyuv d’Oraisa of k’rias Sh’ma. Additionally, those who regularly daven Shacharis at neitz will have to get up as early as 3:30 in the summer. Although it is true that most fasts would end an hour earlier, they would also start an hour earlier, making it impossible to get up early and eat before.
All in all, the cons of such a change would greatly outweigh any potential benefits. Mr. Zwiren is correct that doing this would have drastic ramifications on day-to-day life, but they would be negative, not positive. So please don’t ask your representative, state senator, or assembly member to push for permanent standard time. It would be terrible.
Yaakov Yosef Weiss
The Educated Voter Wants To Know
Dear Editor:
Manny Behar’s column in last week’s Queens Jewish Link regarding the Iran Deal was superb! After reading it, and Rabbi Schonfeld’s excellent column, I was inspired to ask:
What’s more important: saving the environment by reducing our production of oil and gas, or saving our lives by not signing the proposed Iran Deal?
What percentage of the fuel we use now is produced in the US?
What are the countries from which we currently purchase that fuel?
What percentage of the fuel we use now is from each of the countries from which we purchase?
How is it beneficial to the US environment to use fuel that’s not as clean as the fuel from the US?
How can we purchase fuel from countries that use their profits from those sales to promote terrorism?
What is the ideal amount of fuel in the US Reserve Supply?
What is the amount of that Fuel Reserve that we are now using in an effort to lower fuel cost?
Jan Fenster
Dear Editor:
As someone who differs with Rabbi Schonfeld on the comparison between the Trump and Biden administrations, here are answers to some of the questions he posed last week, as well as some of my own offerings:
I think it’s certainly possible that Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Trump was still president, but that is mostly because Trump was doing such a good job of weakening the NATO alliance, which is high on Putin’s wish list. Why mess with a good thing? It certainly takes some creative thinking to imagine that Putin took Trump seriously as a defender of Ukraine.
Is it possible that Putin was emboldened by seeing a United States weakened by the undisputed leader of one of its political parties being singularly focused on claiming that the election was stolen from him and that the current president is illegitimate, and that many of his followers delusionally believe him?
I don’t know if Afghanistan contributed to Putin’s actions, but can that be used as a contrast between the administrations when Trump is the one who signed the agreement with the Taliban and began withdrawing troops (all while stopping the issuance of visas to those who wanted to leave)?
What actual evidence, and not just conservative media wish-casting, has come out to indicate that President Biden was involved with and profited from any of his non-government employee son’s shady business dealings, such that it deserves Congressional investigation on par with the Capitol insurrection and attempt to overturn the election? Even the laptop emails (which were shopped and discovered in such a bizarre manner that it was justified to initially be skeptical of them) don’t show that. Sure, Hunter Biden profiting off his family name is sleazy, but even if you are very concerned about the business dealings of Presidential children, that is hardly a checkmark in the Trump ledger.
What exactly has come out from the Durham investigation that would merit more media coverage? It’s been going on for over 50 percent longer than the Mueller investigation (that conservatives complained took too long), with little to show for it. Even the main “bombshell” about the monitoring of DNS data, which Durham included as an aside in a seemingly unrelated motion (and had been previously reported by the supposedly-ignoring-the-investigation Times), had Fox’s incorrect and dishonest framing of the issue (that the Clinton campaign was infiltrating Trump servers) so quickly and completely debunked that even Durham stated in a motion a few days later that it was not his fault that his words were misconstrued.
Have those who continue to refer to the “Russia Hoax” read the thorough (more so than the Mueller Report, as it also deals with counterintelligence questions) and damning bi-partisan report from the then Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee on Russian interference in the election? Among other things, it details how Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, provided advanced internal polling data and other campaign information to a Russian intelligence officer (to what possible end is redacted). (Manafort subsequently refused to cooperate with investigators and was then pardoned by Trump for unrelated crimes. All above board, I’m sure!) And why do the Fox hosts and WSJ opinion writers who push the hoax narrative completely ignore the existence of that report when discussing the topic, while pretending that the entire investigation was based on the Steele dossier, despite plenty of on-the-record evidence contradicting that?
Regards,
Yaakov Ribner
Dear Editor:
Thank you again to Rabbi Schonfeld for his very well-written column last week about being politically honest.
And on that note, now that everyone other than dyed-in-the wool liberals are expecting President Biden to Heaven-forbid provide Iran with the resources to build a nuclear bomb, how great would it be if Warren Hecht were to write a column on the subject of how pathetic those Jewish Biden voters really were for supporting probably the worst US president ever.
Even though, it’s clearly not possible to be politically honesty while [still] suffering from “Trump derangement syndrome.”
Choni Herschel Kantor
Kew Gardens, New York
Dear Editor:
It’s really good that the QJL’s policy is to have a comedic column every week! I’m referring to Warren Hecht, who pointed out that the law doesn’t pertain to everyone equally. Obviously, the evil Donald Trump heads his list for all his misdeeds. The Hilary Clinton-financed dossier turned out to be phony, as well as the insurrection charges. Where does Warren talk about Hunter Biden’s laptop? Where does he mention how the media shielded President Biden during the election, despite the New York Post’s expose on Hunter Biden’s laptop, which even the left-leaning New York Times has now finally verified as truthful! Your articles are slanted and just as hypocritical!
Michael Rollhaus
Dear Editor:
When President Trump was donating to Democratic causes and its candidates just a few years ago, nobody seemed to care about his business dealings. All of a sudden, he changes to be a Republican, runs for President, wins, and that makes him public enemy Number One. Well, Mr. Durham, among others, have demonstrated that Russia collusion was a hoax perpetrated by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC. So, that didn’t work. Then comes Letitia James running for Attorney General of New York, and she announces that, if elected, she will go after President Trump. And she has tried, as well as the Manhattan DA. If ever there was a malicious prosecution, it is here. Mr. Hecht, unless you can prove President Trump committed a crime, which no one has until now, it is slanderous of you to do so, and I wouldn’t write that he did.
Mr. Hecht left Hillary Clinton off his list, a much clearer example. We know he is a Democrat, and all things Republican are BAD and evil. But Hillary Clinton clearly broke the law, and James Comey laid out the case for all to see. But he ran interference and the Attorney General refused to prosecute her for her crimes. So, if ever there was a double standard when it came to haves and have nots, Hillary Clinton is a much better example. But Mr. Hecht would never write such a thing.
We wait and see if the same goes for Hunter Biden, who is being investigated for tax fraud. After the mainstream media and big tech covered for Biden during the campaign, it is getting harder and harder to run interference. As details of Hunter’s laptop become public, it is quite clear that some impropriety occurred. As things play out, let’s see if anyone in the Biden family, including the president himself, gets charged and/or convicted. Again, a lot more evidence there than in the Trump case. That, too, is a much clearer example of haves vs. have nots.
Mr. Hecht thinks that a spouse is not allowed to have individual thoughts or beliefs from his/her partner. That in and of itself is an outrageous thought. I’d be curious to know if Ketanji Brown Jackson’s husband can define what a woman is? Apparently, if he has a different definition, then, according to Mr. Hecht, she must recuse herself from those cases or withdraw her nomination completely. It doesn’t work like that in this country. Mrs. Thomas is entitled to her own opinions, and they have absolutely no bearing on Justice Thomas as a Supreme Court Justice.
However, give credit where credit is due. Mayor Adams is a hypocrite and, in that respect, no different from his predecessor. To allow unvaccinated million-dollar athletes to play but not allow other private employees from working IS a double standard I can agree with.
Shalom Markowitz
Dear Editor:
Re: the letter posted by Larry Penner in last week’s QJL on the new NYCTA President. Larry Penner just doesn’t get it.
The New York City Subway will keep on keeping on, no matter who is in charge. It will provide a mostly reliable ride during the day, less so at night. The fare will eventually rise. Once in a while, a passenger will be struck by a train or will fall ill, wreaking havoc up and down the line. On occasion, the Seventh Avenue line will be rerouted down Lexington and vice versa. Announcements on and off the train will be unintelligible. The subway will continue to operate in the red. This will take place until the fall of the republic. Under Pataki, Spitzer, Patterson, and Cuomo, there was no significant improvement or deterioration.
Ironically, the author recently posted an opinion piece talking about how well US DOT ran without Pete Buttigieg. The subway will run with or without the new NYCTA president.
The author states what an insult it is to transit employees and five million riders. Make it 4,999,999. I’m not the slightest bit insulted. I doubt my fellow riders are. Ninety percent of the author’s opinion pieces insult my intelligence, contradict each other, sometimes within themselves, or require multiple Google searches to understand.
The practice of bringing people from without has been going on since Noah was building a boat. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing. I doubt a Station Agent giving a passenger directions, or a track worker working on the Third Rail, will care who the new president is. I know I don’t.
Nat Weiner
Bronx, NY
Dear Editor:
NYC Transit Subway Train runs continue to be canceled every month due to a shortage of both conductors and engineers. This is primarily due to the devastating impact of COVID-19, combined with the prior short-sighted policy of canceling training classes for new employees. It takes three months for conductors and eight months for engineers to be fully trained. Even after resuming training classes one year ago, NYC Transit is still short hundreds of conductors and engineers. As a result, they will not be fully staffed until some time later in 2022. One wonders how many trains may have to continue to be canceled in coming months, until this shortage of critical employees is finally resolved.
NYC Transit should have the ability to hire part-time employees to deal with peak service requirements. This might have provided a larger pool of employees resulting in far fewer canceled trains. Why not include this in the next round of contract negotiations between management and the unions?
Sincerely,
Larry Penner