Nassau hosting cricket, student tests, DOJ, more

Knew about new arena? It’s crickets

Once again, Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman does a quiet deal with no community input [“World Cup of cricket coming to Nassau,” News, Sept. 21]. First, it’s the Las Vegas Sands casino. After this arena, how much more of our Eisenhower Park is he going to give away?

There was no community debate on this, and Blakeman thinks accepting an event that the people of the Bronx turned away is a good idea.

If the attendance estimates are correct, the entire park will likely be unusable for other activities during the World Cup, and the traffic in the surrounding communities will be unbearable. The people of Nassau County should be outraged.

I am a lifelong Republican from a large family of Republicans, and we are quite disheartened by all this.

 — Joseph Rice, East Meadow

Great news! The World Cup of cricket is coming to Long Island. A temporary stadium will be built at Eisenhower Park.

Why don’t they name it the Bruce A. Blakeman Cricket Stadium?

 — Carl Vinas, Huntington

Signs of the times: What’s the big deal?

With all that is going on in the world, complaining about politicians’ names on signage is a priority [Political cartoon, Opinion, Sept.  21].

If this is a big deal to some folks, maybe they need to put things in better perspective. Who cares? I pay no attention to these signs. Perhaps people who are bothered by this issue need to rethink their priorities.

 — Joe Alagna, Levittown

Don’t stress kids with exams. Hmmm

If I understand this correctly, a schoolteacher advocates for less testing to “reduce stress” on our students [“It’s time to end high-stakes testing in NY,” Opinion, Sept. 21]. It would seem a little self-serving to not have their teaching skills evaluated by a test of the curriculum being taught.

By the way, the United States is near the top of the world’s countries in money spent per student and ranks much lower in standardized test score results.

 — Anthony Bordano, Middle Village

Evidence shows DOJ is not partisan

The Department of Justice has named former President Donald Trump appointee David Weiss special counsel in the investigation of Hunter Biden [“Hunter Biden sues IRS over tax probe disclosures,” Nation, Sept. 19]. Weiss has all the authority, independence from oversight, and resources granted special counsel Jack Smith, who was named to investigate Trump. As possible evidence of Smith’s non-partisanship, he previously recommended closing investigations into prominent Republican members of Congress.

Now, some have suggested that Smith’s appointment was initiated at the behest of President Joe Biden, that Trump is innocent and is simply being hounded for political reasons, and that Joe Biden is complicit in the crimes that son Hunter Biden is accused of.

But if Joe Biden truly exercises that sort of control over the Justice Department, why would he allow his son and ultimately himself to be investigated? Doesn’t it make more sense to assume that the Department of Justice is motivated by legitimate concerns that each of these two men being investigated committed crimes worthy of scrutiny?

 — Christopher Paul, Bayport

Why were these two even in the school?

Two Wyandanch administrators were reassigned without a public explanation [“Middle school administrators reassigned,” News, Sept. 15]. It was reported that their responsibilities would be handled by the building administration team along with the superintendent and others.

If that’s the case, why were the two there in the first place? They totaled over $300,000 in salary plus benefits — and that’s just for one middle school. I’d be surprised if this surplus of administrators doesn’t occur elsewhere on Long Island. It’s no wonder that people complain about school taxes.

 — Rudy Rosenberg, Carle Place

Defending Trump’s run is questionable

A reader defended former President Donald Trump’s right to run for president once again, stating that democracy demands that the voters decide who should be our leaders [“Trump shouldn’t be barred from the ballot,” Letters, Sept. 21].

It’s an interesting position from someone who appears to support a man who actively worked to undermine an election result, including indirectly inciting a violent assault on the U.S. Capitol.

Trump is currently facing 91 criminal charges related to his actions and continues to undermine our entire system of government on a regular basis. Isn’t the grand jury process also part of the democratic process? It’s one thing to advocate that a man with questionable policies be a candidate for high office and quite another to support someone who may be a convicted criminal by election time.

The Republican Party’s attempts at voter suppression, gerrymandering removal of duly elected officials and suppression of popular initiatives across the country makes its disdain for democracy pretty clear. Maybe Trump is the best representative of their party.

 — Cynthia Lovecchio, Remsenburg