A second-generation Italian-American, I grew up in the Castle Hill projects in the 60's. I didn't feel discriminated against growing up, although I will admit to having a certain innocence of the world in my youth, that was, until the Vietnam War saw friends of mine drafted and sent to fight. I know my dad suffered discrimination on his job, and my mom, a homemaker, also was the object of gossip by church-going women who sat on the benches in front of our building and talked about my mom, a totally private woman who adored her family, as we adored her. I thought there was an interesting parallel drawn between Italian-Americans and Muslims, and the point is well taken. During Covid, my husband and I tuned in to watch Cuomo give his daily briefing. We thought he was doing a great job, showing leadership that we needed at that time. As Covid waned and other issues arose, like the nursing home scandal and the sexual harassment allegations, we were deeply disappointed in Cuomo. I knew instinctively, early on, that the way out of the projects was thru education. I didn't find it a terrible place to grow up, in fact, I loved my community. It was more difficult for my younger brothers, as they told me later. I haven't lived in NYC for many years, but I still love NY and it's part of who I am. If I were able to vote for mayor, Mamdani would be my choice. I think many try to paint him with old tropes about Muslims and Islam. The reason he would be my choice is because I find him to be very intelligent, a man of integrity, and I think he could "move the needle" to make life better for New Yorkers, and I like that he is engaged with the community. Frankly, I think Cuomo is washed up and he has disappointed me not only as a candidate but as a human being. It is my hope that we will start to gravitate to some younger politicians and I see Mamdani as a bright and engaging candidate.
Great metaphor on multiple levels: "If Mamdani was Michael Jordan, a supremely talented overachiever, then Cuomo was Karl Malone, always coming up short in the clutch." lol
Thorough. I appreciate you so much. I happened to catch the MSNBC panel interview that you participated in with Cuomo after the debate. Your kickoff with correcting his mispronouncing of Mamdani was epic, and appropriate. Cuomo's positions were empty and incorrect during that panel interview. And, agree, the MJ - mailman analogy is classic, love it!!
Good piece, Anand — thoughtful and largely fair. I do want to push back on one point, though.
Framing Cuomo as unfit simply because he’s “old” is ageist. I’m 61 — I’m aging, as we all are — but I don’t consider myself “old,” and certainly not irrelevant. Just like any other demographic, people in later decades of life are not a monolith. We work, lead, create, organize, parent, protest, innovate, and adapt. In fact, some of the best works in business, entertainment, the arts, and science came from folks in their later decades. Startups are more likely to succeed with older founders. Many of us are healthier, more engaged, and more culturally aware now than we were in our 30s.
Saying someone shouldn’t run because of their age is no different than saying a 33-year-old like Mamdani is “too young.” What is fair to critique is worldview, leadership style, decision history, or connection to current issues — not simply the number of birthdays someone has had.
Age alone tells us nothing about relevance, competence, vitality, experience, or capacity. Some of us in our 60s (like me) are healthy, strong, socially attuned, still ambitious, and carrying the wisdom and perspective that only time and lived experience can offer.
By all means, argue Cuomo is out of touch — that seems to be an accurate assessment. Is it due to age, his experiences, or his privilege? No one knows. So, using age as a disqualifier is inaccurate, reductive, and, dare I say, lazy. If we’re serious about challenging bias, we need to recognize 'ageism' is bias, too.
I fully intend to live to 100, and plan to keep contributing meaningfully the whole way there. Years do not equal irrelevance — they often equal depth. And, cognitively 67-year olds can differ greatly. Let’s evaluate candidates on substance, not stereotypes.
When Mario Cuomo realized he was losing to Ed Koch, who was an upstart and a surprise, he got just as ugly. He never admitted it, but he clearly endorsed the campaign of posters that were hung over the city saying “vote for Cuomo not the Homo.”
Driving in Brooklyn yesterday the car in front of me license plate, “Islam 1,” I immediately thought of Zohran, a changed city, schools closed on Diwali, Cuomo’s city is only a distant memory, Zohran will exceed 50%, truly a monumental conclusion to an almost perfect campaign, The challenge begins November 5th, can he govern?
Mamdani, or as his acronym admits-- I Madman--is not a Muslim in the religious sense. He's a radical Muslim, in the evil cultist sense/radical political anti-government type run by Muslim supremacists. An example of this is that innocent German people supported the Nazis (a radical supremacist group that wound up murdering over 15 MILLION people in WWII). The same applies to Muslims who are born into the religion vs. those who are the Supremacists, e.g., Bin Laden, Taliban, Al-qaeda, Hamas, Hezebollah, Hothis, Boko Haram, etc. These Muslim supremacists, like the Nazi supremacists are nothing more than bullies and vicious criminals. Muslims in general are religious, and do not subscribe to radical Muslim supremacy.
What??! I challenge this characterization of Mamdani on so many levels. Mamdani has stated that his religion is a central part of his identity and that his policy positions--free bus service, subsidized childcare, etc.--are aligned with Islamic values because they "advance the common good for all of us, Muslim or not." I would argue that his policy positions are not "anti-government," but pro-government for the betterment of the masses. What in his words or actions would lead you to believe he is any type of "supremacist, exhibiting bullying or vicious behavior?"
Watch and see. "Free", "subsidized", "betterment of the masses", are all socialist and communist verbiage. Nothing in life is "free". I take exception to your position that pro-government is for the "betterment of the masses". When you say "free", "subsidized", "betterment for the masses" that means you're stealing tax monies from the masses of tax-paying producers and giving it to the deadwood of society that refuses to work, won't make themselves better, or is looking for "free" handouts. The so-called services you call "free" and "subsidized" are not for the betterment of all. Someone has to pay for them. That someone are the working taxpayers who are fed up paying for "freebies" for parasites.
Well, I certainly take exception to your position that those who would benefit from Mamdani's programs are "the deadwood of society that refuses to work, won't make themselves better, or are looking for free handouts," when statistics show that most of these individuals are working families in which some of the individuals work more than one job. I also understand that taxpayers fund the programs mentioned, however, as a taxpayer, I would much rather see my money funding programs such as these, rather than subsidizing corporate welfare. Mamdani's policy positions are those implemented in Norway, Finland, Sweden, etc. All of these are CAPITALIST countries with a strong, social safety net. As supposedly one of the richest countries in the world, the U.S. could certainly improve services for its citizens. Things like universal healthcare, tuition-free colleges and tech schools, paid family leave, etc., are programs offered in most developed nations--in which the U.S is most definitely the outlier.
Corporate welfare is the typical buzzword of leftist-Socialists. Let's see what corporate welfare does for you: It has given you the greatest society on Earth. Corporate welfare let's you drive the most modern vehicles built, live in homes with air conditioning and heat, allows you to travel across the continent in 5 hours, allows you to buy TVs, computers, electronic devices, cellphones, microwaves, work from home, etc., etc., etc. You're probably one of those that believes in "climate change" also. I can remember when my university was all about everyone freezing to death by 1990. When that didn't happen, it was everyone was going to burn to death because of the ozone layer. When that didn't happen, it became global warming and the cities on the coast were going to be under 20 feet of water by 2000 and the ice caps would all melt. When that didn't happen it became "climate change" which has become the biggest fraud ever perpetrated against humankind. That's where all of the corporate welfare has gone--$50 TRILLION DOLLARS of it in every country on Earth.
You want everyone to get "free" stuff, then start a campaign to eliminate the income tax and the Federal Reserve (which is a private bank run by fraudsters). Elimination of the income tax (and the never ratified 16th Amendment [Income Tax Amendment]) would allow every American to keep all of the money they make and not have to worry about buying homes, buying cars to go to work, buying food, buying the necessities of life, etc. In fact, most of the money that the government collects in taxes comes from corporations and businesses, as well as foreign countries wanting to do business in the U.S. So, instead of giving it all away to illegal alien deadbeats and terrorists, and welfare and social security cheats and frauds, we can keep the money for ourselves instead of government wasting it on so-called farcical "AID" programs to other countries stealing our hard-earned tax monies.
If you want a tax, make it a fair tax of 20% across the board except on purchase of new homes, new cars, food and clothes. The tax would not have a "Sundown" provision and could never be changed. It would replace the income tax (and state income taxes), replace the IRS and replace the Federal Reserve (which couldn't print any more fiat money anymore). It would "subsidize" Social Security to the tune that everyone could retire on at least $50,000-$100,000 annually.
A second-generation Italian-American, I grew up in the Castle Hill projects in the 60's. I didn't feel discriminated against growing up, although I will admit to having a certain innocence of the world in my youth, that was, until the Vietnam War saw friends of mine drafted and sent to fight. I know my dad suffered discrimination on his job, and my mom, a homemaker, also was the object of gossip by church-going women who sat on the benches in front of our building and talked about my mom, a totally private woman who adored her family, as we adored her. I thought there was an interesting parallel drawn between Italian-Americans and Muslims, and the point is well taken. During Covid, my husband and I tuned in to watch Cuomo give his daily briefing. We thought he was doing a great job, showing leadership that we needed at that time. As Covid waned and other issues arose, like the nursing home scandal and the sexual harassment allegations, we were deeply disappointed in Cuomo. I knew instinctively, early on, that the way out of the projects was thru education. I didn't find it a terrible place to grow up, in fact, I loved my community. It was more difficult for my younger brothers, as they told me later. I haven't lived in NYC for many years, but I still love NY and it's part of who I am. If I were able to vote for mayor, Mamdani would be my choice. I think many try to paint him with old tropes about Muslims and Islam. The reason he would be my choice is because I find him to be very intelligent, a man of integrity, and I think he could "move the needle" to make life better for New Yorkers, and I like that he is engaged with the community. Frankly, I think Cuomo is washed up and he has disappointed me not only as a candidate but as a human being. It is my hope that we will start to gravitate to some younger politicians and I see Mamdani as a bright and engaging candidate.
This is a beautiful comment, thank you for sharing Joanna.
Great metaphor on multiple levels: "If Mamdani was Michael Jordan, a supremely talented overachiever, then Cuomo was Karl Malone, always coming up short in the clutch." lol
Great article
Thorough. I appreciate you so much. I happened to catch the MSNBC panel interview that you participated in with Cuomo after the debate. Your kickoff with correcting his mispronouncing of Mamdani was epic, and appropriate. Cuomo's positions were empty and incorrect during that panel interview. And, agree, the MJ - mailman analogy is classic, love it!!
Great article!
the only disagreement I have with you, is that not all 67 year olds are "old".
Just ask Bernie.
Wow. A tour de force.
Excellent article
Good piece, Anand — thoughtful and largely fair. I do want to push back on one point, though.
Framing Cuomo as unfit simply because he’s “old” is ageist. I’m 61 — I’m aging, as we all are — but I don’t consider myself “old,” and certainly not irrelevant. Just like any other demographic, people in later decades of life are not a monolith. We work, lead, create, organize, parent, protest, innovate, and adapt. In fact, some of the best works in business, entertainment, the arts, and science came from folks in their later decades. Startups are more likely to succeed with older founders. Many of us are healthier, more engaged, and more culturally aware now than we were in our 30s.
Saying someone shouldn’t run because of their age is no different than saying a 33-year-old like Mamdani is “too young.” What is fair to critique is worldview, leadership style, decision history, or connection to current issues — not simply the number of birthdays someone has had.
Age alone tells us nothing about relevance, competence, vitality, experience, or capacity. Some of us in our 60s (like me) are healthy, strong, socially attuned, still ambitious, and carrying the wisdom and perspective that only time and lived experience can offer.
By all means, argue Cuomo is out of touch — that seems to be an accurate assessment. Is it due to age, his experiences, or his privilege? No one knows. So, using age as a disqualifier is inaccurate, reductive, and, dare I say, lazy. If we’re serious about challenging bias, we need to recognize 'ageism' is bias, too.
I fully intend to live to 100, and plan to keep contributing meaningfully the whole way there. Years do not equal irrelevance — they often equal depth. And, cognitively 67-year olds can differ greatly. Let’s evaluate candidates on substance, not stereotypes.
I hope so. What a dreadful human being he has shown himself to be.
When Mario Cuomo realized he was losing to Ed Koch, who was an upstart and a surprise, he got just as ugly. He never admitted it, but he clearly endorsed the campaign of posters that were hung over the city saying “vote for Cuomo not the Homo.”
Driving in Brooklyn yesterday the car in front of me license plate, “Islam 1,” I immediately thought of Zohran, a changed city, schools closed on Diwali, Cuomo’s city is only a distant memory, Zohran will exceed 50%, truly a monumental conclusion to an almost perfect campaign, The challenge begins November 5th, can he govern?
Good riddance
Mamdani, or as his acronym admits-- I Madman--is not a Muslim in the religious sense. He's a radical Muslim, in the evil cultist sense/radical political anti-government type run by Muslim supremacists. An example of this is that innocent German people supported the Nazis (a radical supremacist group that wound up murdering over 15 MILLION people in WWII). The same applies to Muslims who are born into the religion vs. those who are the Supremacists, e.g., Bin Laden, Taliban, Al-qaeda, Hamas, Hezebollah, Hothis, Boko Haram, etc. These Muslim supremacists, like the Nazi supremacists are nothing more than bullies and vicious criminals. Muslims in general are religious, and do not subscribe to radical Muslim supremacy.
What??! I challenge this characterization of Mamdani on so many levels. Mamdani has stated that his religion is a central part of his identity and that his policy positions--free bus service, subsidized childcare, etc.--are aligned with Islamic values because they "advance the common good for all of us, Muslim or not." I would argue that his policy positions are not "anti-government," but pro-government for the betterment of the masses. What in his words or actions would lead you to believe he is any type of "supremacist, exhibiting bullying or vicious behavior?"
Block and move on. Otherwise Substack will turn into Facebook.
Watch and see. "Free", "subsidized", "betterment of the masses", are all socialist and communist verbiage. Nothing in life is "free". I take exception to your position that pro-government is for the "betterment of the masses". When you say "free", "subsidized", "betterment for the masses" that means you're stealing tax monies from the masses of tax-paying producers and giving it to the deadwood of society that refuses to work, won't make themselves better, or is looking for "free" handouts. The so-called services you call "free" and "subsidized" are not for the betterment of all. Someone has to pay for them. That someone are the working taxpayers who are fed up paying for "freebies" for parasites.
DOUBLE UGH!
I guess that's an answer from a low-information person/voter. Ignorance is bliss.
Well, I certainly take exception to your position that those who would benefit from Mamdani's programs are "the deadwood of society that refuses to work, won't make themselves better, or are looking for free handouts," when statistics show that most of these individuals are working families in which some of the individuals work more than one job. I also understand that taxpayers fund the programs mentioned, however, as a taxpayer, I would much rather see my money funding programs such as these, rather than subsidizing corporate welfare. Mamdani's policy positions are those implemented in Norway, Finland, Sweden, etc. All of these are CAPITALIST countries with a strong, social safety net. As supposedly one of the richest countries in the world, the U.S. could certainly improve services for its citizens. Things like universal healthcare, tuition-free colleges and tech schools, paid family leave, etc., are programs offered in most developed nations--in which the U.S is most definitely the outlier.
Corporate welfare is the typical buzzword of leftist-Socialists. Let's see what corporate welfare does for you: It has given you the greatest society on Earth. Corporate welfare let's you drive the most modern vehicles built, live in homes with air conditioning and heat, allows you to travel across the continent in 5 hours, allows you to buy TVs, computers, electronic devices, cellphones, microwaves, work from home, etc., etc., etc. You're probably one of those that believes in "climate change" also. I can remember when my university was all about everyone freezing to death by 1990. When that didn't happen, it was everyone was going to burn to death because of the ozone layer. When that didn't happen, it became global warming and the cities on the coast were going to be under 20 feet of water by 2000 and the ice caps would all melt. When that didn't happen it became "climate change" which has become the biggest fraud ever perpetrated against humankind. That's where all of the corporate welfare has gone--$50 TRILLION DOLLARS of it in every country on Earth.
You want everyone to get "free" stuff, then start a campaign to eliminate the income tax and the Federal Reserve (which is a private bank run by fraudsters). Elimination of the income tax (and the never ratified 16th Amendment [Income Tax Amendment]) would allow every American to keep all of the money they make and not have to worry about buying homes, buying cars to go to work, buying food, buying the necessities of life, etc. In fact, most of the money that the government collects in taxes comes from corporations and businesses, as well as foreign countries wanting to do business in the U.S. So, instead of giving it all away to illegal alien deadbeats and terrorists, and welfare and social security cheats and frauds, we can keep the money for ourselves instead of government wasting it on so-called farcical "AID" programs to other countries stealing our hard-earned tax monies.
If you want a tax, make it a fair tax of 20% across the board except on purchase of new homes, new cars, food and clothes. The tax would not have a "Sundown" provision and could never be changed. It would replace the income tax (and state income taxes), replace the IRS and replace the Federal Reserve (which couldn't print any more fiat money anymore). It would "subsidize" Social Security to the tune that everyone could retire on at least $50,000-$100,000 annually.
UGH!
Excellent as ever, but please drop the Stormfront style guide and stop capitalizing “white” and “black.”
what
Loose and misleading characterizations of various ethnic groups