Why ‘divisive’ hits the mark
Art Billadello objects to the word “divisive” headlining a TBR news article [Aug. 1] about the gigantic “In Trump We Trust” sign put up on a building at the main intersection of Port Jefferson, right across from the ferry terminal. He ignores the obvious: Of course a sign like that is divisive.
This was not a campaign sign. It was put up in January 2020, immediately before President Joe Biden’s [D] inauguration and shortly after the attack on the U.S Capitol sparked by the lie that former President Donald Trump [R] hadn’t lost the election. Some 20 feet long and some 3 feet high, it was displayed on the building’s second story balcony. It took our national motto, “In God We Trust,” and swapped out “God” for “Trump.” How is that not divisive?
When I moved to this area over 35 years ago there were no political signs outside of election season, let alone a gigantic sign erected in the middle of town three months after the election, implicitly claiming God-like status for the losing candidate. All that changed after 2016. After that election was over and Trump won, his flags and banners didn’t come down. They remained prominently displayed throughout his entire term. Then, when Trump lost in 2020, the Trump flags and banners still didn’t come down after the election. Why is that? What is the purpose of this other than to provoke and inflame division within our community? It’s not exactly the kind of thing expected of a good neighbor. It expresses the opposite of what unites us.
As for the letter writer’s attempt to draw a false equivalence between Trump and Biden as equally divisive, it’s just more gaslighting. The Biden administration passed the first major infrastructure bill in decades with bipartisan support, in spite of opposition from the extreme left and the extreme right. Trump, on the other hand has trafficked in race-baiting and ethnic stereotypes, hurled childish and vitriolic insults at his political opponents, and refused to disavow the most extreme and violent of his supporters, even to the extent of refusing to condemn their threats to hang his own vice president for performing his constitutional duty.
David Friedman
St. James
Local Dems put politics first
During interviews with TBR, several local Democrats could barely hide their excitement over the change at the tippy-top of their party’s ticket [“Local Democrats see new political energy and interest after Biden withdraws,” TBR News Media, July 25].
John Avlon said, “People are excited to be a part of something bigger than themselves.” Dems are becoming “fired up” about their political prospects.
Steve Englebright was especially upbeat: “Everybody who I’ve talked to is energized. … I see the ascension of a Democratic candidate … who is a woman of color, a woman of substance, in terms of her accomplishments, as validating the idea that women are equally ready” to serve in any political office.
Hitchhiking on that idea, Rebecca Kassay added, “I’m energized and inspired to be running with our first potential female president.”
Suffolk County Democratic Committee campaign manager Keith Davies saw all this as a “great opportunity for local candidates to not have to worry about exciting Democrats.” Davies also added those running won’t have to spend much time fielding questions about President Joe Biden’s “cognitive abilities.”
All that uncontested “happy talk” was weeks ago. Missing then and, as of this writing, missing now, is any substantive talk of policy from the two candidates atop their ticket.
Both the vice president, Kamala Harris, and her running mate, Tim Walz, currently remain basically mute regarding specifics on how they’d manage inflation, illegal immigration, two wars started on their party’s watch, growing antisemitism especially on college campuses, fracking, police funding or restarting ICE “from scratch.”
The aforementioned, a partial list of important issues, does not include Harris’ 2019 call for ending private health insurance.
Campaign staffers trying to “walk back,” some would say flip flop, on her more extreme and unpopular positions are a poor substitute for answering probing questions in her own voice.
But, perhaps the most troubling part of the interview was Davies’ apparent relief that Biden’s “cognitive abilities” may no longer be a pesky political liability. The implication, in this time of multiple global existential crises, is that the fitness of POTUS is off the table. This, despite the fact that Biden’s significant cognitive disabilities remained purposely hidden, until after his awful debate. How then, without careful, unbiased scrutiny, could we know if the current president is fit to run our nation for the next six months?
It’s that kind of deliberate media incuriosity that has cost them credibility and gotten us to the point where unchallenged partisans can put their politics first, and celebrate muted candidates, with little fear of blowback.
Jim Soviero
East Setauket
The community we love
Every Saturday, my husband Bill and I head for the Rolling Pin Bakery at the Three Village Plaza in East Setauket to load up with goodies. This Saturday, when we entered the store, the manager called us over and surprisingly gave us an envelope with a $20 bill in it.
It was found on the floor last week. They looked at the security video and lo and behold … it was us!
The point of all this is that it is really satisfying to know that we live in a community with such honest and caring people.
Thank you to the staff at the Rolling Pin Bakery. You made our day as uplifting as those raisin scones.
Patricia Martin
Stony Brook
Errors in Joseph ‘JOJO’ LaRosa Foundation article
I want to bring your attention to two errors in the recent article that was published about the Joseph “JOJO” LaRosa Foundation golf outing on Monday, July 29 [“Celebrating the life of JoJo LaRosa,” The Village Times Herald, Aug. 1].
The first being at the beginning of the article where you refer to our foundation in parentheses as “Forever JoJo Strong.” This is not accurate. JoJo’s father — and our dad — has a separate foundation with that name. JoJo and I’s parents are divorced and therefore made two separate foundations.
The second error that needs to be corrected is when you refer to “JoJo’s dad” based on a comment by my mom Gina. In the interview she said, “my husband” when referring to the person JoJo used to play with at St. George’s Golf and Country Club and that is because her husband is JoJo’s stepdad, not his father. As I mentioned above, JoJo’s father is not married to my mom and has a separate foundation from JJLF.
I do apologize for the confusion, however, these are very important errors that need to be retracted or revised.
Emily LaRosa, Vice President
Joseph “JOJO” LaRosa Foundation
Editor’s note: We regret these errors and thank Emily LaRosa for bringing them to our attention.
