At Lincoln Center last weekend, people wrote their hopes for peace on lanterns that floated in the pool in the center of the Hearst Plaza. Denton Taylor took the photos above and below.
Leave neighborhood-related comments below.
At Lincoln Center last weekend, people wrote their hopes for peace on lanterns that floated in the pool in the center of the Hearst Plaza. Denton Taylor took the photos above and below.
Leave neighborhood-related comments below.
I have many times seen adults (presumably parents) with children, crossing against the light, jaywalking, even through traffic.
Recently, I saw a woman with two children on scooters, neither of them wearing a helmet. (Both unambiguously appeared to be well under the age of fourteen, as per below.)
Another point about helmets for bicycling, scootering and skating: Apparently, here in New York City at least, the law only requires that these be worn by those who are under the age of fourteen. What is the rationale behind this? How does it make sense?
First, as far as the relevant physics (and the implications thereof) are concerned, there is little, if any, real difference between individuals below the age of fourteen and individuals above the age of fourteen in this regard. Furthermore, we do not allow individuals of fourteen to drive, smoke, drink alcohol, vote or serve in the armed forces. Neither, at this age, do we consider individuals capable of granting informed consent for participation in sexual activities. So how does it make sense to consider one capable, at the tender age of fourteen, of making an informed decision to place themselves at the significantly increased risk of serious and even fatal bodily harm that bicycling, scootering or skating without the protection of a helmet brings?
Yes there seems to be an uptick in neighborhood parents pushing their children in strollers (expensive strollers) crossing against the light, with active/moving traffic. Sometimes the parents are looking at their phones, sometimes not.
(Particularly surprising that so many suburban-raised people who are presumably drivers too, would be so oblivious to vehicles)
I am a parent – completely do not get this.
LS:
Thank you for replying. Several points:
1.) Please note that my observation about adults (most often presumed parents) crossing the street recklessly with children-in-tow was by no means limited to those in strollers. I have seen just as many cases involving children who were old enough to walk but by no means old enough to cross alone.
2.) I will add that I have also seen children with their face buried in a book or an electronic device as they cross the street with one or more adults. As long as an adult is guiding these children carefully enough, they may not be in danger. But what kind of training is it for a child, to allow him to cross a street while oblivious to his surroundings?
3.) You wrote, “Particularly surprising that so many suburban-raised people who are presumably drivers too, would be so oblivious to vehicles”. I wonder why you believe that at least many of the individuals whom you were referring-to were “suburban-raised”? Could you elaborate?
4.) I wonder what people would think of the idea of a campaign of photographing incidents such as these and publicizing the photos. The goal, of course, would be to discourage such reckless and irresponsible behavior that needlessly endangers minors (and others, too).
4.5) Similarly, I have had the idea for some time now of such a campaign directed at people– at least those who are under the age of eighteen or perhaps even twenty-one– who ride cycle, skate, or scooter without the basic protection of a helmet. Remember that in many cases, when a minor who is unaccompanied by a parent does not wear a helmet, the parents are unaware and likely would not approve. In such cases, the publication of photographs of such incidents would increase the likelihood of the parents becoming aware. Additionally, peer pressure could be harnessed in a positive, constructive way.
On the general topic of encouraging helmet-use among youth, the interested reader is referred to a post I made back in June. Once we have succeeded in making the wearing of a helmet “cool” for youth, perhaps we can start work on eradicating the use, by anyone over thirty at the oldest, of lingo such as “cool”.
I’ve stopped by the event the last couple years, and it’s pleasant for a while but then I need to leave because it’s so crowded, and well, best to keep the peace.
Speaking of, it’s shocking to me how many people write unpeaceful political messages: one I read was “First Step to Peace: KICK THE KOCHS OUT OF LINCOLN CENTER!!!” Jeez, I can’t stand the Kochs’ politics either, but sheesh, save it for a more appropriate time.
Hmm, reminds of part of this comment about the annual October memorial ceremony at the Fireman’s Monument.
In the course of complaining about the politicization of a “non-partisan event without politics”, the author sure managed to get-in a gratuitous swipe at former Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, if not former Mayor Giuliani as well.
Kinda glossing over the “convicted felon” portion of Bernie’s CV there, aren’t you, Independent?
BMAC:
My point was neither to defend nor to condemn Kerik, Giuliani or any other individual or entity who may have been implicated in the excerpt that I quoted. (Just as Joel, whom I was replying-to, was not defending the Koch brothers.) I was simply pointing-out the irony in the post I quoted and how similar I found it to that which Joel had pointed-out about some of the participants in the preening spectacle that is the topic of this thread.
Note that the thread in which the comment I quoted from appeared was one in which all who commented were united in expressing solemn respect for the memories of the victims of the September 11th Massacres, as well as for all of the fallen firemen. Why did the commentator-in-question have to dredge-up a contentious incident from some fifteen years ago at all, much less do so in the manner that he did, including a completely gratuitous swipe? It only detracts from an otherwise fine post that he made, recounting relevant history and background about the respective annual October and September 11th ceremonies at the Fireman’s Memorial. The individuals whom our commentator implicated in said contentious event have not been in office for nearly that long. He himself noted that they had already been roundly castigated at the time and that the incident was a one-time anomaly. I’d venture to guess that most readers had long forgotten the whole affair– if they had even been aware of it in the first place. The irony of his dredging it up in the manner and context that he did should have been quite obvious.
Although I cannot, of course, read the mind of the poster of whom you complain, I’d be willing to bet that anyone to whom 9/11 (and the subsequent treatment of the first responders, cleanup crews, et al.) is important would feel very strongly about Kerik’s various wrongdoings.
By way of example, I remind you of his disgusting usurpation of an apartment that had been set aside for relief works in Battery Park so that he could continue his adulterous affair with right-wing book editor Judith Regan (another close Giuliani crony). Don’t underestimate the negative feelings toward the man in this city; he was a sleazy crook who was elevated to his position through typical Giuliani cronyism, and no discussion of his (and Saint Rudy’s!) efforts post-9/11 should leave out the warts.
https://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/15/nyregion/apartment-said-to-have-been-scene-of-a-kerik-affair.html
This thread is called Pray for Peace.
You’ve done a wonderful job here keeping the sprit going.
Are you ever actually happy about anything?
I hope their prayers are realized.
Wonder if some of the ‘peace-niks’ messing up the serenity of that beautiful reflecting pool with their “shmata”-like floating peace candles also came away with some of the coins sitting on the bottom of that pool?
What DOES happen with those coins anyway? Are they donated to charity?
The coins dissolve.
BMAC wrote,
That may very well be true. No less true, however, is that not every discussion about or that touches-upon the events of September 11th, 2001 need or should be about any of the individuals you mentioned in the first place. That, plus the incredible irony in the way that the inappropriate tangent was raised by an individual in the very same post in which he had just condemned essentially the very same kind of lack of respect and sensitivity that he was now guilty of himself, was my point. I elaborated upon and explained it, in clear and rather painstaking detail, in my previous post. That you continue to miss the point entirely and dig deeper in your intransigence, would suggest that the resentment you feel toward the individuals you named– as justified as it may be– is blinding you.
FDNY MEMORIAL DAY
On Wednesday, October 7th, at 11am, a Memorial Service will be held for deceased members of the Fire Department at the Firemen’s Monument, 100th Street and Riverside Drive, Manhattan, 10025.
https://ufanyc.org/cms/contents/view/20145
Elizabeth, Joe, all interested:
This annual event was mentioned in comments under this year’s the 9/11 story.
I have finally been able to determine its starting time: 11:00 a.m.
Thank you, D.R.
Note the time-stamp on D.R.’s above post.