open digital edition
Have you ever heard the old cliché, He would step over a hundred dollar bill to pick up a penny? I have and have seen many examples of it happening daily. Usually it involves individuals but nowhere on the scale of various governmental organizations. The reason being most individuals are spending their own money and are, for the most part, as conscientious as possible about getting the most for their buck.
Governmental agencies, by virtue of their very existence, seemingly couldn’t care less about fiscal restraints. They draw from an endless supply of money and resources. Most dispensers of the largess face no accountability for extravagance or unnecessary spending. There are several reasons. One major is the endless pursuit for perfection in achieving political correctness in every facet of government dole. Another is the deteriorating state of the environment which, if one listens to the pundits, is in major crisis.
Politicians of every stripe from the lowest to the highest proclaim their intentions to spend the taxpayer’s money wisely and fairly. Their every word and deed aimed at using every dollar to create jobs, opportunity, a healthy environment, and security on all levels to every human being on earth. It is nearly impossible to figure out which of the many major crises take precedence over another.
One that ranks very high on the totem pole—if you can believe the rhetoric from politicians, special interest groups, and the media—is the energy crisis. I think that is one we can all agree is impacting every single person on the planet, and we should all embrace the idea of doing what we can to solve it.
Many of the various theories put forth are what I call Mickey Mouse solutions. I have heard them all from lowering carbon footprints to using three sheets of toilet paper. The latest is Harrison Ford’s waxing of the hair on his chest to protest the cutting of the rain forest.
On the local level, the new Arts Center is highly praised as being a green building. It has received endorsements from Assemblyman Butler and Supervisor Moore. Congressman Arcuri is the latest Federal Official to express his approval and support for the project. It, and even the most miniscule of the suggestions to conserve energy, are worthy of our support and backing. I believe that everyone reading my views on this will heartily concur. I have just one question to all of you and especially every category of politician. Why is it so hard to understand the incredible waste of energy generated by the Postal Service’s outright refusal to even discuss or review its policy in the home delivery of mail in our and other locations across the country? Why, instead of requiring millions to drive endless miles to pickup their mail, does it not make more sense to have far fewer individuals deliver all mail to those who need and desire delivery? Presently, many who qualify under Service guidelines are denied while others are given delivery on private property and at frivolous locations such as at seasonal docksides.
Every citizen in this country should receive the same service from every government agency, particularly when it discriminates and wastes energy. I have been trying for over three years to get even an acknowledgment of my attempts to have an independent review of the situation and have not even received the courtesy of an answer from either of our two senators from New York. Why am I surprised? I will tell you why.
The Postal Service is the third largest employer in the country. It hosts one of the largest union-supported organizations and is the darling of every member of Congress, which is totally responsible for it operation. They are afraid to alienate it in any way. Why not expand its operation, when it would end discrimination, extend service, create jobs, save energy and ensure more votes? Who was it that said in the case of Air Traffic Controllers: If you want to professionalize, you must unionize. I believe it was none other than our own Senator Charles Schumer.
When I started my campaign to get home delivery of mail, the way it was intended at its inception (remember what RFD stands for), I thought everyone would see the logic in my argument. Then I began to believe that it is a case as Shimon Peres, Israeli statesman, described when characterizing the situation Israel has with its neighbors: If a problem has no solution, it may not be a problem but a fact—not to be solved, but to be coped with over time.
Then I remembered Margaret Mead and her advice: Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
So, I say to you fellow citizens, which do you want to be known for: a community famous for allowing many of its citizens to be openly discriminated against or one that stood up for all of its citizens? I propose that, on Memorial Day weekend, all of us band together to protest openly. I will close with a pronouncement by yet one more famous American, Dr. Martin Luther King: An injustice against one person is an injustice against us all.