Nassau County mask ban, Lee Zeldin on ESG investing, TV medicine ads

It’s surreal: Mask ban is obscene

Many years ago, the young man searching my purse at a concert venue entrance told me I couldn’t bring in my closed plastic cup, which contained something I carried for medical reasons. I told him it was necessary and pointed to my medical alert bracelet. He said, “Can you prove it?” I was stunned for a moment, then gathered myself and said, “Well, I could faint in front of you. Will that prove it?”

The Nassau County ban on masks could produce a similar scenario [“Nassau’s mask ban concerns experts,” News, Aug. 16].

I still wear a medical mask in theaters, supermarkets and anywhere else where there is a large group of people. To have an officer possibly ask me if I could prove I need my mask would be an emotional punch. No, I can’t prove it, unless I carry a note from my doctor.

It was said that medical masks would not be part of this ban, but officers have the right to question anybody.

The people I generally see wearing them are, like me, older. I guess there’ll be a roundup of old folks soon because we’re not going to produce medical information about our conditions. It’s insulting.

— Roberta Comerchero, Commack

In the early 1990s, in the middle of winter on the way to a midnight-shift job on my motorcycle, I pulled up to a Taco Bell takeout window. The employee wouldn’t give me my food until I took my wind-blocking mask off.

Is this what I have to look forward to — regardless if I’m on a motorcycle, bicycle, tricycle or rollerblades? Should I troll fast-food stops to see if they can find me guilty of something other than avoiding frostbite?

— Andrew Colen, Coram

Zeldin’s money advice — it makes no cents

I had to cringe when reading Lee Zeldin’s view on investing in environmental, social, and governmental, or ESG, policies [“The war on ESG must shift to proxy advisers,” Opinion, Aug. 11]. He wants to eliminate investment firms from offering funds that will consider a company’s impact on the environment and society.

Shouldn’t it be my choice to put my money in investments that shy away from companies that pollute the environment, make dangerous chemicals, or choose companies attempting to improve society for all.

Zeldin makes reference to retirement and our future and that ESG takes an approach that short-term profits may not be the best indicator of the long-term cost to our environment and the world we live in.

He speaks of free choice, but it seems to only be if you agree with his narrow conservative view of the world.

— Jim Baumert, West Islip

Lee Zeldin’s op-ed badly misses the mark. Companies embark upon ESG initiatives for many reasons, including consumer sentiment, regulatory requirements, or because of specific, internally prompted discussions.

They will undertake professional analyses and make politically unbiased decisions on what path is best to increase value. No well-run company is going to bankrupt itself implementing self-determined or regulatory ESG initiatives.

One might also want to consider that for the United States to continue exporting to global trade partners, industries must adhere to ESG-related regulatory manufacturing and reporting requirements in foreign markets.

A concerning aspect of pushback against the Paris Agreement is the prospect that we no longer would have a seat at the table as our trade partners make the rules governing our ability to export.

ESG topics require a pragmatic, well-thought-out approach, taking into consideration the long-term and short-term needs of our economy, workforce and consumers. Zeldin’s description of ESG as a “scheme” and supporters as “culprits” reveals that he is disinterested in developing practical solutions. He does not approach the issue as most companies will. Pushing a political agenda in a space where it is not necessary is not helpful.

— Frank Romeo, Westbury

I take my investing advice from experts, not Lee Zeldin.

We have used ethical, environmental criteria with our investments for years and have done extremely well financially. I am happy to hear that others do, too.

Certainly, an adviser should explain the benefits of each investment, but acknowledging that a company has risks due to its history of pollution is a part of the equation. If fund managers see an upside to ethical investing and share that with their clients, good for them.

— Mary Negra, East Setauket

TV medicine ads? They make me sick

When I was a kid, I watched TV ads for Mattel toys and Bonomo Turkish Taffy. With a black-and-white TV, I’d use my imagination about where the yellow went with Pepsodent toothpaste, and I don’t recall if I ever saw the foaming cleanser, Ajax, actually foaming.

So, it’s with great empathy that I read Susan Bruno’s My Turn essay, “A summer cold, wee-hours TV and me” act2, Aug. 11].

I’m a baby boomer, and I find it depressing to watch commercials at any hour of the day that hawk self-catheterization, motorized stairways, and the like.

Even more upsetting is that many new medicines target younger generations, all the while showing people happy, laughing and generally having a great time. Meanwhile, a melodious background voice casually mentions possible cautions and side effects, which seem to include not only the kitchen sink but stroke and even death.

Like the Virginia Slims commercials, we’ve come a long way, baby — but unfortunately, perhaps, not quite in the right direction.

This public marketing of drugs seems to have gone off the rails, becoming more Broadway and Hollywood than medicinal.

— Richard Peters, Merrick