CLOSE
Opinion

by -
0 584
Fireworks in Port Jefferson for Independence Day in a previous year. Photo by David Ackerman

The two-party system is embedded into every political conversation. When a politician, local or federal, is the subject of a news article, their name is followed by a “D” or “R”. To many, the difference means much more than it should.

The emotions tied to those two letters may be negative or positive, ranging from dislike to amenable trust, and stem from sincere concern for our community and country.

The distrust one may feel for the opposite party can border on dislike and, encouraged by the acrimony of their counterpart, can lead to fiery animosity. Fueled by the anonymous, fearful rhetoric of digital echo chambers and by the open hostility of today’s leaders for whom compromise has become synonymous with weakness, parties can become identities. An attack on an identity becomes personal. The understanding that each party desires a better America, that the whole reason for the parties is to ensure that the government works for the benefit of the people, is lost in the combative, competitive trading of attacks, verbal and political.

The Fourth of July is a holiday for Americans–not just for Republicans or Democrats. We can all celebrate the entirety of America and its history, not just with and for those who agree with us or who are members of the same party. 

It honors the history we all share as citizens; the birth of this nation and the structure of our democracy allows us all to have a say in its future. This Independence Day, we should reflect, not only on our nation’s history, but on how that history informed the issues that characterize present day politics. Our constitutional rights, what it means to be an American, what it means to live in a democracy: these are all questions that previous generations of passionate people have grappled with over the last 249 years. How do we interpret them today? How do we balance defending our country with the unity of cultures inherent to our country’s founding, sealed in the words, “we the people”?

On Thursday night, red, white and blue fireworks will explode in the sky, our nation’s flag will be splayed across hats, bathing suits and shirts. Firecracker popsicles will be in our freezers as we fire up our barbecues. Most Americans will be celebrating, and no one, not Democrat or Republican, can begrudge the other the right to do so. On this day, let’s remember that this country belongs to all of us and together it’s much stronger when we work together. Let’s not become so accustomed to divisiveness that we ignore the voices and hopes of our fellow Americans. Let’s remember why we celebrate and, hopefully, allow that history to infuse our beliefs with some empathy, as the day marking U.S. Independence reminds us how much we can accomplish when we work together. 

by -
0 844
Photo by Raymond Janis

Rallies should be covered

The assertions in Mr.  Ceo’s letter to the editor in last week’s edition (Times Beacon Record, 6/26) was wrong for several reasons. First, the No Kings rally which I attended along with hundreds of others was in our area and deserved newspaper coverage. If the rally were espousing another political point of view with which I may disagree, it would also deserve coverage. A newspaper cannot be expected to report only news with which readers may agree. As for the claim that the participants in the rally were “misguided,” what could be more American than rallying for democracy over a monarchy. Our founders staked their lives on it. 

Second, he is wrong about masks and other efforts to control COVID. At that time COVID was a mortal danger.— Many people died. An unmasked person with COVID was a serious threat to me. That makes it not a matter of personal choice but a matter of public health. A person’s choice not to wear a mask was a threat to all around him or her. Because it was a matter of public health, it was not, and should not have been, a matter of personal choice. Your liberty ends when your actions threaten me. That is why we have laws against drunk driving and smoking in public places. The same is true of the need to have children vaccinated before they enter school. Unvaccinated children may infect others with serious diseases. 

Adam D. Fisher 

Port Jefferson Station

TBR needs to cover rallies

I take exception to the premise of the letter writer in last week’s Times Beacon Record who complained about your coverage of the No Kings rallies (“Local community paper should cover community events,” June 26). When thousands of Long Islanders show up on a cold and rainy Saturday to protest the actions of the current White House administration, that’s newsworthy. The protests were national in scope, with seven in Suffolk County, including Port Jefferson Station. How much more local can you get? All Long Island media outlets, both print and broadcast, covered the rallies. The TBR would have been remiss in not doing so.

The letter writer labels the No Kings rallies as “ineffectual protest that accomplished nothing.” That’s his opinion. Those who braved the inclement weather on June 14 to voice their disagreement with the current President and his administration would no doubt disagree.

The letter writer compiled a laundry list of the deprivations we all experienced during the COVID shutdown: closed schools, businesses, houses of worship and so on, citing this as evidence of “real dictatorship.” First of all, much of this occurred during the final year of the first Trump administration. Let’s recall that our nation was facing an unpredictable and fear-inspiring pandemic. Measures were taken that now may appear  unnecessary in hindsight, but represented a good faith government response to COVID at that time. Some actions were right, others wrong. Perhaps many of us, including the letter writer, survived the pandemic because of the correct government actions.

 Martin Skrocki

 Wading River

Local papers need to cover local rallies

To the Editor:

I beg to differ with Rick Ceo, who writes in a June 26 letter that TBR newspapers shouldn’t have covered the “No Kings” protest in Port Jefferson Station.  It is precisely the function of local newspapers to hold the government accountable by reporting on controversial topics and events within our local communities.  Unfortunately, over the past few decades hundreds of local papers have either been shuttered or reduced to little more than boosterish rote reports on parades, street fairs, ribbon cuttings, or excerpts from press releases put out by local officials.  The resulting blackout of incisive reporting is not healthy for a constitutional democracy. 

I wonder if, during a Democratic administration, coverage of a local protest by right-leaning demonstrators against its behavior or policies by TBR newspapers would so “irritate” and “rankle” Mr. CEO.  He states that TBR should not have reported on the local “No Kings” demonstration because it was a “totally ineffectual protest that accomplished nothing.”   Maybe he should re-read the First Amendment, with its clause guaranteeing “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Mr. Ceo inaccurately claims that the parade celebrating the US Army’s founding was planned during the Biden administration.  Actually it was Trump who proposed it, in his first administration.  I’m old enough to remember the 200thanniversary of the Army’s founding (1975).  There was no large-scale military parade in our nation’s capital.  There has never been a large-scale military parade of this type, costing some $45 million and unconnected to the end of a war, held in Washington, D.C.  Such parades, with their reviewing stand and massive display of tanks, missiles and other military hardware are typically held in Moscow, Beijing, Pyongyang, or Tehran, not in Washington, D.C.  That is why one protester stated, “we don’t do dictator parades.”

As for Mr Ceo’s gripes about supposedly “dictatorial” measures put in place to combat COVID-19, perhaps he thinks he might have done a better job protecting the American public from a pandemic that ended up killing over a million Americans.  Good government means balancing individual rights against the well-being of the community at large.  All of the measures he mentions: masks, social distancing, vaccination, preventing large-scale gatherings particularly indoors, proved essential to slowing the spread of that highly contagious disease in a population with no immunity.  The biggest problem was the politicization of those measures.  For all his exaggerated boastfulness, Trump never brags about the best thing he ever did, namely Operation Warp Speed, which fast -tracked the development of a vaccine, saving countless lives.  Why? Because it doesn’t fit in with his political agenda, which is based on falsehoods, conspiracy theories and magical thinking about health and individual rights.

David Friedman 

St. James

No Kings protest is an important local story

In a recent letter (“Local community paper should cover community events,” June 25), Rick CEO criticized this newspaper for covering “left-leaning causes” like the No Kings protest, arguing that it should instead focus on what he considers more deserving topics, such as the Port Jefferson mayoral race.

In fact, the Port Times Record provided excellent coverage of the recent mayoral election, which is how I know that just 1,724 people voted. By contrast, the No Kings protest drew roughly twice that number of participants in Port Jefferson alone. Across Long Island, more than 35,000 people took part in a dozen related demonstrations, joining 4 to 6 million Americans at over 2,000 locations nationwide. Going by numbers alone, the protests were arguably more newsworthy than the election, not less so. Fortunately, this paper had the capacity and judgment to cover both stories well.

Mr. Ceo is, of course, entitled to his opinions. He is free to argue (however unconvincingly) that public health measures like mask mandates and quarantines amounted to tyranny, while anonymous federal agents abducting people for indefinite detention in foreign gulags without due process does not. What he is not entitled to do is urge a community newspaper to suppress coverage of a major local contribution to a national civic movement. That suggestion reflects an illegitimate, anti-democratic impulse—-precisely the kind that makes peaceful, patriotic protests, like those held on June 14, so important.

John Hover

East Setauket

To the Editor

The North Country Peace Group has been an integral part of our Three Village and Suffolk County community for 23 years. We are a grassroots group of local community members who came together in 2002 to protest the Iraq War and continue to stand for peace and justice. We do advocacy work promoting policies supporting peace. Throughout the years we have worked on the following issues: Say No to War, lessen the threat of nuclear proliferation worldwide, fight for the rights of our immigrant families and neighbors, bring the war dollars home to our communities, defend our democracy from authoritarian threats to our Constitution, support Black Lives Matter and join with local environmental groups seeking justice. 

We work together promoting nonviolent activism advocating for peaceful resolutions for a just society. At a pivotal time, with uncertain challenges, together we can serve the common good, working to preserve our democracy with equality and justice for all. We strive for a more just and equitable world and community by promoting peaceful solutions to conflicts.

 Join us every Saturday on Route 25A and Bennetts Road in Setauket from 11:00 a.m. to 12 p.m. on the south side of 25A near the CVS store. Everyone is welcome. 

Bruce K. Barry

NCPG Member 

East Setauke

WRITE TO US … AND KEEP IT LOCAL  

We welcome your letters, especially those responding to our local coverage, replying to other letter writers’ comments and speaking mainly to local themes. Letters should be no longer than 400 words and may be edited for length, libel, style, good taste and uncivil language. They will also be published on our website. We do not publish anonymous letters. Please include an address and phone number for confirmation. Email letters to: [email protected] or mail them to TBR News Media, P.O. Box 707, Setauket, NY 11733

 

by -
0 612
METRO photo

By Daniel Dunaief

Daniel Dunaief

Two-year olds, or, as in the case of our children, three-year olds do it readily.

You ask them for something, like a hand to cross the street, their patience while you finish your breakfast, or a moment of quiet so you can conclude a phone call and the loudest and most insistent word in their vocabulary erupts through their mouths: “Nooooooo!”

It’s one of the defining elements of the Terrible Twos, when the power, the independence, and the assertion of no becomes leverage, a game, and, perhaps, a way to seize a moment or more of control when their parents are making just about every decision for them.

Somewhere along the line, we become socialized and the idea of saying “no” to everything, or even to many things, becomes problematic and potentially ostracizing.

Peer pressure makes the declaration that you have to study instead of going to the beach with all your friends less understandable and acceptable.

Saying “no” can lead to all kinds of questions.

“You seriously think what you’re studying is so important?”

“You think what you’ll learn is going to help you get into a better school?”

“Wouldn’t it be more fun to hang out with us and throw a frisbee on the beach?”

So, the “no” response gets shelved, especially in social circles.

It’s ironic and unfair to parents, of course, that the times we want our children to say “yes,” they are comfortable telling us “no,” but when we want them to say “no,” they suddenly become much more pliable.

Anyway, back to the concept of no. So, many years ago, my wife and I were scanning the movie listings, back in the days when our dates involved going to a film, eating popcorn and then discussing the character, the plot, the theater and the entire outing for hours afterwards.

We decided on one of the many Batman films, and after some back and forth, found a theater with a viewing time that worked for us. I remember sitting through the movie, shaking my head at the plot, shrugging at the action, and wondering when the film would end.

After some discussion, we realized that neither of us wanted to see the movie and we were both going because we thought the other one was interested.

Nowadays, when we’re making decisions, we can cut straight to the chase.

“Wait,” one of us will say, “is this Batman?”

It’s a quick and easy opportunity to share our genuine interest in an optional activity.

We have become so refined at our willingness to share what we think at the risk of disappointing the other person that we give a percentage of Batman. A 50 percent is a shrugging indifference, while a 90 percent is a strong preference to find an alternative.

I’ve heard people these days use the words “or no” at the end of questions when they’re trying to make a decision.

“Do you want to go to a diner after we’re done with this work?” one of them will ask.

When the decision takes too long, someone will say, “so, are we going to the diner or no?”

The “or no” part seems superfluous. The question has two answers: yes or no. Yes, I know, like our Batman discussion, someone could say, kind of or maybe, or 63.49 percent yes, but, generally speaking, yes and no are the likely replies.

Maybe the “or no” phrase is a way of making it socially acceptable to say a word we overused and now, perhaps, underuse: no. By adding “or no,” the questioner encourages a companion to share a genuine opinion about getting a grilled cheese with fries at the diner.

The “or no” option increases the sincerity in the search for an honest answer.

Rarely, of course, does someone say, “do I look good in this, or no?” or “does my new haircut suit me, or no?” Perhaps the context for the use of the or no phrase reflects how confident the speaker is in receiving a negative response.

Hearing the phrase “or no” means the listener hears the word before saying it, making it easier to restart the planning process.

That two-letter word can help people avoid activities that neither of them really want to do in the first place.

by -
0 782

By Leah S. Dunaief

Leah Dunaief,
Publisher

Given all the chaos, both globally and domestically, in today’s world, it is surprising that the stock market is back to just about where it was before the decline started with the pandemic. So what does that tell us about investing, and especially about investing in stocks?

According to Charles D. Ellis, a Wall Street guru, who has written a new book called, “Rethinking Investing: A Very Short Guide to Very Long-Term Investing,” it’s not what is happening in the world at any given moment that matters, according to him. The magic element for financial success is time. When most people think of long-term, they may think five years, maybe ten years. Ellis is talking 60 years.

So who has a 60-year horizon?

There are two ways to answer that question. If you are in your 20s when you start investing, and if you believe in the incredible returns you get from money compounding as you reinvest the dividends over the decades, you can realize significant wealth by your 80s. 

In other words, let’s say you buy a stock or an index fund at $100 that pays a five percent dividend when you are 25. A year later, you have $105, if you let the principal compound, meaning, you automatically reinvest the dividend into more stock. You now have more dividends from more stocks to reinvest after the second year, and so it goes. The dividends keep increasing as the number of stocks increase and perhaps also appreciate—most of the time. If the stocks should drop in price for a while, the dividends get to buy more stocks at the cheaper price.When you are in your 80s, you will be a happy camper if your stocks remain untouched for 60 years.

This is good advice for those in their 20s, or thereabouts, today.

If you are older, the other way to think about a 60-year time horizon is if you consider that you are investing for your grandchildren, who have a long-term future. Of course, they would have to leave the stocks untouched to allow them to compound, so you need to explain this essentially passive strategy to them. They would hope to make enough money from their day jobs to pay their bills so they can let their inherited investment  compound undisturbed.

Low-cost stock index funds that are diversified are a recommendation from Ellis. They reduce the risk of picking the wrong individual stocks, and they do as well as the overall market. And the overall market, over the long-term, is a winner. From January 1926 through March, 2025, the annualized return for the S&P 500 (a combination of selected stocks) was 10.43 percent, according to analysts. That includes the several severe market declines, over those years, that are overcome with long-term investing. While that’s almost 100 years, if we look over the past 60 years, the number is almost the same: 10.46 through June 20.

That means, an investment would have doubled in less than 7 years, on average and that repeated doubling continues. Further eye-popping statistics: The cumulative return for the S&P 500 for those 60 years was…wait for it… 38,881.17 percent. Yes, really! So, if you had invested $1000 60 years ago, it would be $390,000 today. Woulda! Coulda! Shoulda!

That said, losses over a one year period happen 30 percent of the time for all stock portfolios. And according to analysts, for an investor to have withstood all the losses since 1926, they would have had to hold the S&P 500 for 13 years.

For all of the above statistics and information, I am grateful to The New York Times’s writer, Jeff Sommer, who likes the way Ellis thinks, as reported in his column, Strategies. This appears in Sunday Business each week. Thank you, Jeff. I like the way you think.

by -
0 565
METRO photo

Plants need stems to survive. They provide structural support and connect the roots to the leaves and flowers, making it possible to bring water, nutrients and sugars throughout the plant.

Similarly, STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) serves a critical function for society.

As with the rest of a plant, STEM is not the only part that nourishes our culture, but it does offer critical support that makes it possible to adapt to future challenges and to push the frontier of human knowledge.

This week, we and scientists around the world celebrated the long-anticipated grand opening of the Vera C. Rubin Observatory in Chile, a telescope and camera so advanced that it has already spotted 2,400 asteroids we hadn’t previously seen.

This state-of-the-art camera was funded by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, making it possible to see deep into space and to ask questions about changes around us as well as dark matter and dark energy.

“NSF-DOE Rubin Observatory reflects what’s possible when the federal government backs world-class engineers and scientists with the tools to lead,” Harriet Kung, acting director of the DOE’s Office of Science said in a statement.

Indeed!

This project echoes some of the cutting edge science efforts that the federal government supported after World War II.

STEM funding supports translational research, which addresses questions like what molecule can scientists target to slow or stop the progression of cancer or what plant genes can enhance resistance to disease or environmental extremes. It can also support basic research that explores what causes a cell to divide, to die, or to differentiate.

Both of these areas of research have led to important discoveries that have contributed to society. Researchers credit their achievements with the opportunity and knowledge they received from previous generations of scientists who, like runners in a relay race, pass the baton to the next generation of great thinkers and explorers.

Science funding has among the highest returns on investment of any federal funding, Cutting funding to areas like the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and other federal programs can impede the ability of science and society to grow and respond to change.

The current budget proposal for 2026 suggests a 40 percent cut to the NIH, which would reduce the number of institutes from 27 to eight. Yikes!

Further up the chain, societal growth also depends on supporting the education of students who can go from a classroom where they learn about what’s known to a field where they can rewrite the textbooks they had studied.

Canceling grants to STEM education not only threatens the students who miss out on chances to learn, but also society, which won’t benefit from the spark of inspiration these students receive.

The federal government must continue to invest in STEM. The future growth of our society – with businesses, cures for diseases and an expanding knowledge base that enables us to live healthier and better lives – depends on it.

by -
0 938
METRO photo

By Anisha Makovicky

America is the land of opportunities they say, we just have to work hard and we can succeed. As a high school student, I have watched the current administration strip students such as myself of the opportunities that will allow us to build a successful future. The current funding cuts do not impact just science research but also education. According to a report published by Education Week in May 2025, the National Science Foundation, under the Trump administration, canceled over 400 grants for STEM education.

The administration has even cut funding for PBS Kids, which was created to bring STEM education to children of lower class families. I can’t imagine any benefits to discouraging our future doctors, engineers, scientists and leaders from science. If high school students are not allowed to start pursuing science early, they will be set back in the future. And since one day we will all depend on this next generation of scientists, doctors and engineers, setting back high school students will set back our whole country, not just in science. 

Everyone should be worried about cuts to science and education funding. These affect entire families, students and educators. Parents are worried that their children will lack future opportunities to become involved in STEM fields. High school students are primarily affected by the loss of programs and reduced chances to gain experiences to form their career ideas. Educators and teachers are not able to do their jobs and support students as they did in the past. Knowledge generated by scientists trickles down to the high school curriculum but if science is limited, there will be less knowledge passed down, meaning that future high schoolers will be at a lower standing. This domino effect will have a cascading impact on future generations. 

A well rounded education is important for everyone, not just students who aspire to attend competitive colleges. As a society, we believe a high school education is crucial for making informed decisions and helping one understand the world better. This is especially relevant because for many people, a high school diploma is the highest level of education they will receive. Federally funded education programs offer different ways of learning both in and outside classrooms. Experiential learning such as hands-on curricula through internships, public education programs, museums and field trips expand upon the standard public school curricula. This is important because students learn in different ways and non-classroom learning experiences are especially beneficial for students with learning disabilities or different capacities to engage. These diverse types of opportunities are necessary to ensure every student is given a chance to succeed. 

Over 50% of NSF funding cuts have been to education programs, according to the Hechinger Report. 1,400 grants have been cut, and 750 of those were to STEM education. That equates to about $775 million that could have helped students engage with STEM. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) began the cuts to reduce diversity, equity, and inclusion in scientific research. While it is understandable to want our federal government to run efficiently, cutting scientific research and education will have little effect on the efficiency of our government and the lasting impacts will put our entire nation at a disadvantage. It is imperative that we protect our equal access to education in order to create a better future.

Anisha Makovicky is a student at Earl L. Vandermeulen High School. 

by -
0 767
File photo by Raymond Janis

Local community paper should cover community events

I’m irritated by the coverage of the No Kings protest by the Port Times Record in the June 19 issue. Why this “community” newspaper continues to give attention to left-leaning causes rankles me. Right there on the front page side-bar were two other stories that merited much greater attention because of their community interest: The PJ mayoral results in a hotly contested election and the nationally ranked rowing teams celebrating the accomplishments of our hard-working teens. Instead, the main focus was on a totally ineffectual protest that accomplished nothing.

Why must the Port Times Record give voice to misguided individuals. For example, the article quotes the protest organizer claiming, “We don’t do dictator parades.” The parade celebrating the founding of the US Army had been planned under the Biden administration for two years.

The irony should not be lost on clear-thinking people that the real dictatorship was the government that required and demanded that we wear masks, stay quarantined, prevented us from worshipping in our churches and synagogues, mandated vaccines, closed businesses, made sure that the elderly died alone, kept us social distant at an arbitrary 6-feet apart and closed schools setting back the education of our children. Who were the real dictators? Where were these antidictatorship protesters then? Yet, the Port Times Record thinks No Kings is front-page news.

Perhaps the Port Times Record should focus on community news and leave its bias to the op-ed page.

Rick Ceo

Port Jefferson Village

Response to Gene Sprouse’s June 12th letter

I am responding ONLY as a longstanding resident of the community, not as a Setuaket Neighborhood House Board member.

I purchased a home on Lake Street in 1976 directly across the Setauket Mill Pond from the Setauket Neighborhood House. Before that, I lived in the B Section of Strathmore for 7 years. A total of 56 years in the community, compared to Mr. Sprouse’s 55 claimed years, is pretty equal local tenure. However, as a person living so close to the SNHfor 49 years, I do have a pretty good sense of the daily activities there.

While living on Lake Street, I used the SNH many times for my children’s birthday parties and for two of my own birthday celebrations. 

The Lake Street ladies, led by Eva Glaser, Liz Tyler and Marylu Mills assembled to do the first major redecorating of the house back in 1980. It was the first Three Village Historical Society Candlelight House Tour featuring some homes around the Setauket Mill Pond to raise money to refresh the interior of the Setauket Neighborhood House. I was part of that effort, yet those three ladies deserve all the credit.

I offer the above simply to show my longstanding involvement with the SNH.

I have been a member of the SNH Board for 10+ years now, but this letter is NOT from the board. It is from a local Lake Street resident who happens to be on the board. It is NOT an official SNH Board response, just my thoughts.

The cameras were installed in the SNH as a safety issue, not to monitor or to spy on any groups using the house. 

While it IS posted everywhere that NO SMOKING is allowed inside or on the porches, people using the house continue to smoke there. As a member of the Three Village Garden Club, I have planted and maintained the flowering annuals in front of the house for many, many years. I check them twice weekly and pick up the cigarette and cigar butts (along with cups, plates, napkins and other trash) thrown from the porches into the bushes and flowers. Other board members do so as well.

The house is open most days with little or limited supervision. Recently, a group left a kettle on the stove to burn dry, a major fire hazard. People frequently use the house as a bathroom stop. Significant damage has occurred over the years, and it has become worse of late. Items are stolen and damage occurs. We have had groups from other LI communities using the house for fundraisers that are of no benefit to the local community. While the house is available until 11 p.m., some groups illegally stay longer.

For example, two summers ago I heard loud noises from both inside the house and in the parking lot at 11:30 p.m., well beyond closing time. A fight broke out in the parking lot, and I called the Suffolk County Police at 11:45 p.m. An officer arrived at 12:30 a.m. after I made a second call asking the 911 operator why it was taking so long to arrive at the scene of this fight. The operator told me that the police officer did not know where the SNH was even though I explained its location in my original call. Incredible! At 8 a.m. the next morning SNH Board President Tim O’Leary and I were at the house picking up all sorts of garbage left behind by this group. Needless to say, we are both volunteers.

So, yes, Mr. Sprouse, the SHN DOES need cameras for security and safety. I disagree that, “There is little need for this internal surveillance to protect the House….” It is NOT just “our neighbors” who use the house. People from communities 45-50 minutes away rent space there as well. I am not certain they will “value and protect this great community resource.”

As for privacy issues, the house was never meant to be used for secret private political meetings. If privacy is an issue, then such groups should find another place to meet.

No board member is spending time spying on meetings or ogling yoga classes, but when damage occurs (and it certainly has!), we do have a video of the damage done and the responsible party. At one recent meeting, one of the group disabled the camera. Do you support such actions? I do not. 

Although groups are told they may NOT tape banners to the walls, just a few weeks ago, a group from outside the Three Village community did so, damaging the paint on a wall that had been painted just months before. We have proof and can assess the responsible group for repairs. Video proof was essential.

Please understand that we have numerous groups who use the house for its intended purpose and deserve credit for their tender care of as Mr. Sprouse asserts, “a wonderful community resource.”

I believe, as a neighbor living near this historic building, that video monitoring is essential to the safety and security of the house. If a group finds that offensive, I am sure they can meet elsewhere or in private homes.

With grateful appreciation to all who use and support the house for its intended purpose from the Constitution and By-Laws –”To promote moral, intellectual, recreational and social welfare of the residents of Setauket, New York and vicinity.”

Julie Robinson Parmegiani

Setauket

The opinions of letter writers are their own. They do not speak for the newspaper.

WRITE TO US … AND KEEP IT LOCAL  

We welcome your letters, especially those responding to our local coverage, replying to other letter writers’ comments and speaking mainly to local themes. Letters should be no longer than 400 words and may be edited for length, libel, style, good taste and uncivil language. They will also be published on our website. We do not publish anonymous letters. Please include an address and phone number for confirmation. Email letters to: [email protected] or mail them to TBR News Media, P.O. Box 707, Setauket, NY 11733

 

by -
0 713
A scene from 'The Court Jester'

By Daniel Dunaief

Daniel Dunaief

My uncle was mad and probably a bit disappointed with the rest of the family. He had gallantly, I suppose in his mind, volunteered to drive our family from the funeral home to the cemetery where my father was going to be buried.

There my brothers and I were, laughing in the back as if we were on a normal family retreat. No, scratch that, we were probably laughing even more forcefully. It was our coping mechanism, which my uncle, who spent little time with us growing up and, in particular, during my father’s illness, wouldn’t and didn’t understand.

One of the many things that we observed and shared with each other from the back of that vehicle of loss was the impressive collection of fancy cars that were trailing behind us.

Our father was a big fan of test driving cars but not as much of a fan of buying them. We’re pretty sure there were car salesman who went on break immediately as soon as they saw him turn into their lot, desperate to get away from the bearded guy who seemed so earnest and excited about the cars, but almost never did anything other than ask about them, drive them, and return to his aging Buick LeSabre, promising to “think about it.”

We were amazed at the Jaguars, the Mercedes and the host of other cars that people who wanted to pay their respects drove to his funeral.

“Oooh, there’s a BMW,” one of us said. “Wow, dad would love that car, but maybe not in that color.”

My uncle shook his head slightly and frowned at us in the mirror. I guess he wanted us to behave more properly or respectfully during this somber moment.

But laughter is not only the best medicine, as it turned out for us, but has been a way my family connects with each other and with many of the people in our lives.

I must have watched the movie “The Court Jester” starring Danny Kaye at least a dozen times with my father. Each time, I knew when the dialog that made him laugh so hard was coming. His breath came in high pitched squeals as he bent over double trying to get air into lungs that were too busy laughing spasmodically. 

“The pellet with the poison is in the vessel from the pestle. The chalice from the palace has the brew that is true,” Kaye would say.

Those lines, and the bumbled repetition with nonsense word variations, always hit their mark, forcing him to find a tissue to wipe the tears from his cheeks.

I remember the laughter, and what triggered it, from friends and family members who have either passed or with whom I have had little contact over the years.

Shared laughter, as sitcom producers understand, creates a positive and encouraging atmosphere, telling us that we can return and enjoy these light-hearted and peaceful moments with unseen strangers or with others in the room.

The hit show M*A*S*H combined macabre humor in the midst of a war zone with antics that helped talented but stir crazy doctors manage through difficult circumstances.

My aunt Maxine used to find it both surprisingly annoying and oddly funny when I rolled my sleeves up into strange positions or turned parts of my collar inside out.

“Don’t be silly!” she’d laugh, which, of course, only encouraged me. “What are you doing, Daniel?”

She’d come over and, with the soft small fingers of someone who had Down syndrome, would unfurl the sleeves of my shirt and would adjust my collar.

My grandmother, meanwhile, giggled at the absurdity of her grandchildren.

My brothers and I would sometimes say or do something unusual and, rather than get upset, she would find our behavior so ridiculous as to be laughable. When she giggled, her entire upper body shook, as those quaking motions had an epicenter around her stomach. Her laughter made her seem so much younger.

My wife and I recently attended a live musical show that poked fun at everyone from politicians to sports figures to crazy neighborhood text messages.

The show not only hit home for many, but it also caused people to chuckle so hard that their laughter became a part of the show.

These days, with uncertainty around the world and hovering heat and humidity squeezing sweat out of us like a dish rag, the laughter of those we know or have known can serve as a soothing salve. Life is messy and frustrating and seemingly beyond our ability to control. Laughter may be just what we need, offering the kind of cooling shade that dials down the temperature.

by -
0 689
Photo by Josh Willink/Pexels

By Leah S. Dunaief

Leah Dunaief,
Publisher

Whew! That was blistering heat we just endured for the last few days. When it gets that hot, I have two reactions. I need some ice cream, preferably a cone filled with coffee ice cream dotted with chocolate chips. And I have to switch to wearing shorts.

So it gave me a chuckle to read an inquiry by a reader of the New York Times Style Questions column asking about wearing shorts to work. Now I’m supposing that she works in a large city office, where there is a formal or informal dress code, and like me, she wants to beat the heat by donning shorts. 

Her question amuses me because it reminds me of how far wearing shorts has come, and also how lucky we are.

First the shorts evolution. It must have been a slow news day back in 1960, when The New York Times ran a front page story about Barnard students wearing Bermuda shorts as they meandered through the Columbia campus. Imagine the scandal. It seems President Grayson Kirk of Columbia was offended by the casual dress and asked Barnard President Millicent McIntosh to clamp down on her students. Only skirts were to be worn, came the directive, with some sort of appropriate blouse.

Well, we students protested, with petitions and rallies, until the ban was rescinded to a “request” to wear a coat or slacks over the shorts when on the Columbia campus, which was across Broadway from Barnard. Think how innocent the uproar when measured against today’s protests on the same campuses.

Clearly President McIntosh wasn’t similarly offended because she advised us during an ensuing assembly of the entire college “to turn over your book covers when you are riding the subway (some two-thirds of students were commuters then) so no one knows you are from Barnard.” And any ban would not take place until September, which was one way of kicking the can-or ban-down the road.

Other women’s colleges treated the issue of showing knees differently. Radcliffe, adjacent to Harvard, only permitted shorts for athletic activities. Vassar College allowed shorts both on campus and in town (Poughkeepsie, N.Y.). Smith College, in Northampton, Mass., allowed shorts on campus and in class, but no shorter than two inches above the knee. All that was researched by The NYT reporter for the 1960 article.

Today’s reporter, Vanessa Friedman, answered the reader this way. “Shorts are often longer than skirts these days and often more conservative. There is no reason a woman shouldn’t wear them to the office.” She goes on to say that any hesitation might stem from the association of shorts with play and summer weekends rather than work. As such they are not considered professional garb.

There is also the question of what kind of shorts, she advises. Very short shorts are not any more acceptable than very short skirts. To professionalize the look, a blazer, a belted T-shirt and conservative shoes — platform shoes or even pumps — might complete the outfit, or an oversize button-up shirt.

So now I come to the point of our being lucky. First, most of us are not in a large city office but rather a suburban environment, which, culturally, is more relaxed. We live in the land of the sweatsuits.

Furthermore, times have so radically changed that no one, for example, expects a doctor or lawyer, the epitome of professional, I guess, to appear in a suit. Not even a tie. A button-up Oxford shirt is pretty dressed up these days, and we often see professionals thusly outfitted: men in golf shirts and trousers, and women in short sun dresses.

Finally, we, as journalists, are allowed to look casually dressed. Few people would expect to be interviewed by someone in a suit. It might even make them nervous. Yippee!

by -
0 1047
Local leaders at the Lawrence Aviation Site on June 2. Photo by Sabrina Artusa

Local stakeholders wait with bated breath as the June 30th deadline for the MTA to close on purchasing 40 acres of the closed Lawrence Aviation site approaches. Each passing day chips away at the possibility of a new railyard that would enable the electrification of the Port Jefferson Rail line. 

The Superfund site has been eradicated of the toxic pollutants that degraded the soil and water and is nearly cleared from the registry. Part of it will be used as a solar farm and part will be preserved as open space. The missing piece is in the hands of the MTA and DOT. 

Despite pressure from local stakeholders and politicians and the near absence of any pushback or even hesitation from the community, the plan stalls. A year ago this month, the DOT and MTA had a deadline for the MTA to purchase the property. Two extensions and 12 months later, little, except for the mounting impatience from the community, has changed.

In order for the MTA to move forward, the DOT, which currently owns a section of the Greenway that would need rerouting before construction can begin, must provide permission.

Business owners, environmentalists, legislators, town, county and state politicians are all rallying for a common cause: the benefit of the Long Island community. 

The delay causes numerous problems: it keeps commuters riding on with an inadequate and dated mode of transportation; it prevents electrification, which would be quieter and reduce pollution and it keeps the frequency of train travel on the current schedule, instead of increasing the number of trips.

The site has been in limbo for a year and is priced at only $10–such is the Suffolk County Landbanks’ desire for a deal. Now, the DOT needs to reach an agreement with the MTA allowing them access to the land that would facilitate the sale and enable the construction of a railyard. Local officials like Assemblywoman Rebecca Kassay (D–Port Jefferson) are advocating with state officials, including Governor Kathy Hochul (D). With her help, perhaps the DOT and MTA can reach an agreement before this opportunity chugs away on an outdated line, in a plume of diesel smoke. 

123...169Next Page 1 of 169
TBR News Media is your local news and entertainment website.
We provide you with the latest breaking news and information for your community.
Contact us: [email protected]

Most Viewed

©