Letters to the Editor: 09.15.16

Deep Appreciation

Springs

September 6, 2016

Dear Editor,

My dear husband, John Chappel, and I would always say how lucky we were to live here in East Hampton. From the bottom of my heart, I wish to express my deep appreciation to the many who supported us recently.

To the Springs first responders, for your skilled and compassionate care, thank you. Because of you all, I was able to be by John’s side one more time. You must know how important that was for me. 

To that one dear, special police officer, you know who you are, words fail me. 

To our community and friends, for the outpouring of such love and affection, for all those comforting hugs, kind words, nourishing food, and beautiful flowers, thank you, thank you, thank you.

John had a heart of gold with a generosity that was boundless. He always shared a kind word (or two) and a smile with everyone, whether the checkout person in the I.G.A., the postal delivery person, countless people. How wonderful if we all could remember, it’s so simple — just be nice to each other. It means so much.

CHRISTINE GANITSCH

Unwilligness to Fight

East Hampton

September 8, 2016

To the Editor:

In 2012 Susan and John Cartier applied to the East Hampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals for approval to build a “family compound” at 105 Main Street. Even though the building inspector had denied the application, the zoning board approved the application, but the Cartiers could not go forward with the two-house project because there is a rather strict grant of scenic easement, dated Sept. 29, 1976, covering the entire property, restricting development to the very front of the property. The Village of East Hampton asked a court to enforce the easement, and did so at a significant cost to the village. The village won the lawsuit, and the State Supreme Court agreed that the scenic easement did not allow the Cartiers to build a family compound on this protected parcel.

The owners decided to appeal the court’s decision to a higher court, though there is no reason to believe that the village would be anything but successful defending the court’s decision. The village went through the expense of having its counsel submit a brief in opposition to the appeal. Yet, after spending all that money defending the 1976 scenic easement, it appears that the village has decided to accept a settlement out of court that establishes an “amended and restated scenic easement” covering only 21,388 square feet (less than a half-acre) in the front of the two-acre property, but leaving the Cartiers with the right to build more structures (including two houses) on the remaining three-quarters of the property previously covered by the scenic easement.

This deal has all the indications of an unwillingness to fight to preserve open spaces, the original intent of the 1976 easement. Worse, it backpedals on a preservation effort made a generation ago, with no meaningful reason other than that the current board for some reason thinks that handing the Cartiers a family compound on a parcel that was mostly open space for 40 years is in the “best interests of the village.”

In fact, the village appears to be getting nothing from this deal, and the Cartiers are getting exactly what they wanted all along. According to the plans submitted to the zoning board three years ago by the Cartiers, their plan never included any construction on the front quarter of the property. So maintaining the front quarter of the property as an open area, which they have the right to landscape, fits perfectly with the Cartiers’ original plans to build their “compound.” The village gets nothing for years of a successful lawsuit at a cost of presumably tens of thousands to the taxpayers, and the Cartiers get exactly what they wanted all along: a property that is no longer burdened by any meaningful scenic easement.

Why did the village bother going to court and spending a lot of money to have its easement enforced in the first place? Why did the village choose to walk away from the successful order after paying its special counsel to defend against the appeal?

None of this makes sense, other than to signal this village’s lack of perseverance and willingness to stand by the conservation measures of prior generations. If this agreement is signed, it will be a clear indication that the current administration will not fight to enforce scenic or conservation easements and that all owners who have an easement in East Hampton should attempt to get out of their easements. Getting out of an easement surely enhances the value of one’s property, but at the expense of all of us. 

GORDON M. BOWLING

Bus Depot Facility

East Hampton

September 12, 2016

Dear Editor,

I was very surprised by your article of Sept. 8, “Green Light Bus Depot,” in which your reporter Christine Sampson said that the East Hampton School Board gave the go-ahead to move forward with plans “to build a bus maintenance barn and refueling facility” on the Cedar Street side of the property. 

I am a frequent user of Cedar Street, which is almost exclusively a residential area, is a narrow and heavily trafficked road, and is a major conduit for emergency response vehicles. The only way I could begin to imagine a bus depot there is if the entrance and egress of buses is along a road through the campus out to Long Lane. Given that there are alternative locations that can be considered, I cannot imagine a worse place for the district to put a bus depot, nor can I understand the need for haste. I hope The East Hampton Star offers its reading public an in-depth article addressing the following omissions — undoubtedly due to space and time constraints — in Ms. Sampson’s article:

Have the new owners of the bus depot facility on Route 114 said the school must vacate the premises, precipitating this rush?

Names of the “school officials” who made the evaluation and determination that the district needs a new bus depot facility and that the Cedar Street plot is the best location.

What field did they consider “chopping up?”

Who are the unnamed “many community members” who spoke to “school officials” (who are also unnamed) and asserted they were opposed to the Long Lane site, and in what public venue did they say this? 

What reasons for the rush to get started were given by the school board president, J.P. Foster, who said, “The architect has a lot to do. We are now moving forward.”

What off-site alternatives did the “school officials” consider at the time of this article?

Where did the determination come from that a bus depot and maintenance facility will cost $4.75 million? Is it current? 

What alternatives have been offered for public review and when? 

Who is the architect who “has a lot to do,” and in what meeting was his or her contract approved? 

Why is the board having discussions on this during a “facilities committee” meeting at 10 a.m., as opposed to an evening meeting that can be attended by the public?

Are there legal implications for the school board in “moving forward” on a capital improvement project without public approval?

I hope The East Hampton Star, with the cooperation of School District Superintendent Richard Burns and the school board, provides answers to these concerns in an in-depth article. While I do not specifically oppose a new bus depot, I do oppose the sudden “urgency” and the insistence that Cedar Street is the only location worthy of consideration. Our newspapers are the public’s major source of information, and when so many unanswered questions arise in an article in the form of vague assertions by unnamed officials, we hope your reporters will ask them. 

Thank you, 

LORNE SINGH

Trash Elimination

East Hampton

September 6, 2016

David,

 The good, the bad, and the ugly — or, as I like to call it in East Hampton, Supervisor Cantwell, Mayor Rickenbach, and the trash.

Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell graciously invited me in after I posted a social media tirade about trash cans at Atlantic Avenue Beach in Amagansett seriously overflowing and piling up on the ground. My wife and I were responding to a sick seagull rescue at 4:30 p.m. on Saturday, Aug. 27, at the beach, and saw the mess. I’m pretty much used to seeing this filth each summer at many of our beachheads early in the morning when I photograph the sunrise. The difference this time was, I watched a young girl who’d just purchased a popsicle from a vendor peel off the paper and drop it onto the ground pile of trash as she walked by. An almost fluid motion that made me want to vomit. 

I immediately thought of all the folks I’ve been trying to educate about being more environmentally conscious, particularly on our precious beaches. Then I thought of how many, many more were being de-educated by the results of these constantly overflowing trash cans. Hundreds of folks walked by that mess within 30 minutes, and the lack of proper trash removal and accommodating cans couldn’t have sent a worse message to the public, both locals and visitors alike. 

I also felt this disastrous environmental oversight was a straight spit in the face of all the awesome volunteers who are out there, on their time, for no pay, helping both the town and village with a job that their paid workers cannot manage alone. This isn’t an insult, and it isn’t saying the crews aren’t dong their jobs. In fact, the roadside crews are extremely thorough and do a great job, but like me and my volunteers and all the volunteers in the area, together we still can’t keep up with the trash spread all over.

 I met with Mr. Cantwell and explained my issue, an issue that was all too familiar to him, as I’ve been screaming about trash and the lack of a proper management plan at the beaches for years. This time it was breaking the very core of a key element in the solution to this ever-disgusting problem felt each summer season, the overall message that it is not acceptable. This pile of filth at Atlantic Avenue Beach grew below the very town signage telling folks it was unlawful to litter. What the mess was really telling folks is that this behavior was acceptable, and no one was supervising to say differently. Both young and old were infected by this visual message, hundreds by the hour.

About 15 minutes into this conversation and we’re forming a plan. Moments later, an initial working plan is created. I ask Mr. Cantwell to please put the plan into effect by next Memorial Day, and he says, “I’ll have an attendant at Atlantic Avenue Beach this Saturday from noon to 6 p.m.” Then, after realizing it was Labor Day weekend, he says the attendant will also cover Sunday. At that point I knew Mr. Cantwell was ready to end this issue. I couldn’t have been more pleased, as I knew this was a huge step toward a solution, and the beginning of the end of trash on our beaches.

 Then there’s the village mayor. This guy is all over the place. Accessorizing our natural wildlife, putting garbage cans on the beaches, where they continue to overflow all summer long. A complete environmental letdown. Coincidentally, Barbara Borsack has her deputy mayor status surprisingly taken away after 16 years of loyal and intelligent service to the Village of East Hampton. I know that Ms. Borsack is environmentally conscious and I believe shares some of my concerns with the serious litter issues we have. It’s almost like the mayor is doing all he can to work against those trying to end trash and litter, and molding a successor to follow in his footsteps. 

So, folks, even though we made a huge step forward, we still have a huge obstacle to hurdle before we can be a unified force against trash and litter, particularly on our beaches and shorelines. Perhaps the East Hampton Town Trustees can help encourage this unification as well.

Unification + education = trash elimination!

DELL CULLUM

 

Extension of L.I.E.

East Hampton

September 12, 2016

Dear David:

I appeared before the town board last week to support its proposal to acquire land adjacent to the Amagansett municipal parking lot in order to expand the size of the lot, which is full to capacity at many busy times of the day. As a practitioner of yoga at Mandala Yoga in Amagansett Square, it is impossible to find a spot in the adjacent parking lot, and at the same time the municipal lot is full. So clearly this is a wise action on the part of the town board.

At the same time that I voiced this support, I shared with the town board my recollection of when I traveled as a boy from the Bronx to Rockaway, Queens, and part of my family’s journey included using Horace Harding Boulevard. At that time the Long Island Expressway did not exist. If I recall correctly, in the early 1950s construction of the expressway began, and it was projected that this new road would solve all of the traffic congestion on Long Island. I am sure your readers will know where I am going with this.

I voiced my concern that the growing population of the Town of East Hampton will in short order fill the expanded parking lot and that the town board should pass a building moratorium and take the time to figure out how to control the ever-increasing density that in the summer months has made Montauk Highway an overcrowded extension of the L.I.E. and changed the complexion of our town as we have known it — which will be forever, if action is not taken to stem the tide of increasing density. 

Leadership requires action that is not always popular with everyone, and the real estate interests in our town have an outsized voice. Ultimately if they do not see the light, they may regret realizing their short-term gains at the expense of their long-term interests. The rest of us, who suffer the consequences of overcrowding now, will also suffer those long-term economic consequences. Those consequences being that East Hampton may not be the desirable place where people want to be, thus bringing about a diminution in the value of real estate. 

DAVID J. WEINSTEIN

Overgrown Frat Boys

Montauk

September 9, 2016

To the Editor:

I’m sure many of you have read of the invasion of “hipsters” into Montauk. Well, first let me say they are not hipsters, by any definition, in any dictionary. These are overgrown frat boys who have the money (or family money) to rent houses and cause destruction to our beautiful town. I won’t go into a rant about that now, but I must share what happened the other day.

I was in the middle of an appointment when one of the hordes of renters next door started honking repeatedly. I finally shouted for them to stop it. A few moments later the doorbell rang, and there in front of me was a sight to behold. On my very own doorstep was frat-boy-non-hipster-doofus. Barefoot, drunk, and rather tilted, he said he was terribly sorry about the noise. He said that he would have brought us a bottle of wine, “but we drank it all.” That comment was worth it for all the laughs it’s given us since. 

I invited him in for a minute, but his alcohol-infused breath made us all woozy so we escorted him to the door. He told me that he lived next door (he doesn’t). That he is the only renter (he isn’t). The new laws (thank you and finally) have made renters memorize a speech so that the landlords don’t get busted. 

I am rejoicing in the fact that Labor Day has passed.

LESLIE CHASE

Corps of Engineers

Montauk

September 9, 2016

Hey, David,

I’ve always loved the Army Corps of Engineers. Especially in the movies, when they used the names Moe, Larry, and Curly.

DICK CAVETT

Dollar Sign Dunes

East Hampton

September 9, 2016

Dear Editor,

The photograph that appeared in The Star last week of the recent storm erosion of the sand dune built by the feds and approved by the town board in Montauk lacked a few Photoshopped surreal touches. I would suggest dollar signs on the exposed sandbags and a line drawn out from the dunes at the six-and-a-half-foot mark to represent sea level in the year 2100.

By 2100 most of downtown Montauk will be under water as a result of sea-level rise caused by global warming. (For the latest science, see the March issue of Nature.) The money from the feds that went into the temporary dune could have gone into buying endangered oceanfront property. Without that source of funding only the community preservation fund is available.

To understand what this means you must look at the town’s recent purchase of two properties with houses on small lots on Gerard Drive in Springs. Well over $2 million was spent. There simply will not be enough money to buy all of the property that sea-level rise will flood.

To see how ignorant our current approach to sea-level rise is here in East Hampton, you only have to look at the town groundwater protection plan on its website. There are no lines on the watershed map to represent sea-level rise. That means we will be spending up to $5 million a year “upgrading” septic systems that may be under water.

All of this waste of money, based on the lack of science and logic in the town board’s decisions, will come to the public’s attention after the first major hurricane hits East Hampton. By then it will be too late. C.P.F. money will have been wasted, many of the homes that provide the tax base will have been wiped out, and the federal money will be long gone.

For these reasons I am voting against the groundwater extension of the C.P.F. fund. That plan needs to be rewritten in light of sea-level rise. Otherwise you can watch that money follow the money spent on those sand dunes — down the drain and out to sea.

PAUL FIONDELLA

Managed Retreat

Montauk

September 12, 2016

Dear David,

Thank you for your focused attention on the pressing issue of Montauk’s downtown beach.

Concerned Citizens of Montauk believes strongly that the ultimate solution to Montauk’s coastal crisis is managed retreat. But unwinding nearly a century of poor planning decisions is complicated and expensive. 

Both private and public infrastructure need to be relocated out of harm’s way. Managed retreat will likely be accomplished in phases and may require interim steps such as pumping sand from offshore to widen the beach.

 The early challenge that we now must embrace is mapping out the steps that get us to managed retreat and figuring out how to pay for it.

The good news is that in many respects we all want the same thing: a beautiful beach enjoyed by residents and visitors and a thriving economy that supports good-paying jobs. I am confident that if our community is determined to meet both of these goals we will set an example for Long Island and other coastal communities around the nation.

Hopefully, many of your readers concerned with these issues were able to attend the Montauk hamlet plan meeting last night. There are additional meetings at 6:30 at the Montauk Playhouse both tonight and tomorrow night and again at 9 on Saturday morning. 

The Army Corps of Engineers will be in Montauk on Sept. 28 describing its proposal for the downtown Montauk beach. And on Oct. 1, Concerned Citizens of Montauk will host a free public meeting: “The Future of Downtown Montauk,” from 2 to 4 p.m. at the Montauk School. Community members will have a chance to hear from and ask questions of experts on coastal planning, wastewater management, and community planning.

Solving Montauk’s coastal crisis will require hard work and frequent reminders to ourselves that, in the end, we all want beautiful beaches and a strong local economy.

Sincerely,

JEREMY SAMUELSON

President

Concerned Citizens of Montauk 

Closing the Airport

Springs

September 8, 2016

To the Editor:

When Tom Knobel ran for supervisor last year, he was stridently vilified for suggesting that the policies proposed by the anti-airport groups would lead inevitably to the shutting down of the airport entirely.

Now we know that for at least some significant number of the antis, the goal was, is, and always will be, the closing of the airport. And they have doubled down on their folly by proposing that the property be used for a wind and/or solar project of some sort. In other words, take a taxpaying, profitable enterprise and replace it with an endeavor that is already heavily subsidized by the taxpayer and will now receive freebies from the town treasury. Wind and solar sound good and make everyone feel green, but at the current level of technology, they cannot function without massive public support.

It would have been better for East Hampton Town if Mr. Knobel had won, but no doubt he will find some solace in being able to say I told you so.

REG CORNELIA

The Trackmovers

Montauk

September 5, 2016

To the Editor:

Once upon a time there was a lovely town by the sea called Easttown, and the people were happy. They had local businesses to serve their needs, and the town attracted tourists who came to enjoy the summer climate, the beaches, the local marinas, and charter boats, etc. They spent money in the shops on the main drag, where there were movie theaters, playhouses, shops, and lots of real estate agents.

The real estate business was especially good, because some of the tourists liked the place so much, they invested money to acquire homes, to build new ones, and to hire people to design, build, and maintain them. Some in town preferred to slow the growth, and the wise town leaders made rules about construction, zoning, etc., so that newcomers added to the town’s economy, but did not crowd out the residents. And it was good.

Automobile traffic was a major problem. There was only one road leading in and out, and traffic was threatening to choke the town. But there was an alternative to autos. There was a train. It was fast and efficient, brought in people who boosted the local economy, and the train reduced traffic congestion.

But not everybody loved the train. It rattled when it went by, sometimes even blowing its whistle. It was noisy, as trains tend to be. Naturally enough, the houses that were close to the train noise were less desirable than houses at the other end of town where the noise could not be heard. People who wanted a bargain bought land and houses near the tracks and paid less. Of course they knew the train was noisy, but the property was less expensive because of that, and they got the benefit of the bargain they made.

But in time, some who had bought houses in the vicinity of the tracks grew tired of their bargain, and decided they wanted to eat their cake and have it too. They asked the town leaders to move the tracks to another part of town. When the town leaders demurred, the complainers formed an organization, trackmovers. The membership filed a blizzard of train-noise complaints, and subtly threatened to dethrone the town leadership and elect leaders who would move the tracks. The trackmovers, though but a tiny percentage of the total community, were well funded, well organized, extremely vocal, and quickly became a potent political force. “Move the tracks farther east,” they demanded. “We don’t want the train noise near our houses anymore!”

So the town leaders tried to solve the problem. They tried reason: They asked the trackmovers leadership when they bought their homes. Were trains already running on those tracks at that time? “Yes.” Didn’t they know trains make noise? “Yes.” Didn’t they know they paid less for their property because of their decision to live in a noisy zone? “Yes.”

Then the leaders asked the trackmovers if they were at all concerned that the townspeople who paid more for their property because it was not in the noise zone would object to having the tracks moved to their neighborhood? “No,” they answered. Didn’t they think it unfair simply to shift the burden from their backyard to somebody else’s backyard? “No” again. Would the trackmovers be willing to pay the difference between the value of their property today and its increased value if it were no longer affected by train noise? “No,” they answered. Would they be willing to compensate the people into whose backyards they wanted to shift the train noise? “No,” they responded.

Then the leaders asked, “Well, don’t you think your approach is a bit selfish? You want somebody else to bear the burden you agreed to carry when you bought your property at a discount?”

“I don’t care,” said the trackmovers, “I want what I want, and if you don’t give it to me, I am going to hold my breath until I turn blue.”

And they did.

MARTIN LONDON

No Longer Friendly

Mattituck

September 2, 2016

Dear Editor;

Now a local pilot is coming out and saying what all of us have been saying for years: The skies are no longer friendly. We all know there is just too much air traffic at KHTO.

When one local pilot comes forward and admits to becoming involved in aerial games of “chicken” with seaplane jockeys for hire, perhaps it’s time for the East Hampton Town Board to take additional steps for the safety of the pilots and residents. This is yet another reason for serious access restrictions. Are recreational pilots going to be crowded out by the burgeoning “air taxi” business?

Safety first for everyone in the air and on land. This pilot’s honesty should be commended and taken very seriously.

Noise is one problem. Our safety is entirely another.

TERESA McCASKIE

Wounded Warrior

Amagansett

September 7, 2016

To the Editor:

Last winter I wrote to you to say the allegations against the Wounded Warrior Project were false. I have met over 1,000 wounded soldiers and their caregivers over the last 13 years and watched how W.W.P. positively impacted their lives. The truth is coming out.

A new, independent, and extensive report by a leading figure in the nation’s philanthropic community has concluded that the CBS and New York Times reports criticizing the governance of the Wounded Warrior Project last January got it wrong. The 80-page report was compiled by Doug White, a former Columbia University professor who has worked in and for the nonprofit world for over 30 years. The report’s conclusions include the following:

1. Many of the allegations made by CBS and The Times were wrong or misleading. The reports relied on a few former disgruntled employees while ignoring the numerous positive reviews both reporters received from current and former employees. The negative sources weren’t vetted and included people fired for cause, including misuse of the organization’s funds. They formed a cabal on Facebook dedicated to taking down the charity. 

“The problem wasn’t the senior management,” White states, “but the stature of two venerable news organizations that developed reports that were essentially incorrect and based on biased and incomplete perspectives of former W.W.P. employees, many of whom had been fired, who took it upon themselves to blow a whistle that, in the end, was more the screech of uninformed whining than a signal of any merit.”

2. In the wake of the reports, the W.W.P. board of directors fired the chief executive officer, Steven Nardizzi, and the chief operating officer, Al Giordano, after a financial review was conducted. That review essentially concluded governance had been good but offered no specifics as to why the leadership was fired. Stunningly, the board released no written report about the review. White’s investigation concludes that both men performed responsibly and with integrity. They maintained a keen focus on outcomes of all expenditures, adding that W.W.P.’s finances were sound and its impact strong. “In terms of helping veterans, their families, and their caregivers, there was a constant and growing level of success. W.W.P. authenticates almost all of its work to show the effect it has on wounded warriors and their families,” White states.

3. The report states the W.W.P. board acted inadequately in many respects. “The biggest culprit was not the media. The problem was the response by the board — the silence in the immediate aftermath [of the media allegations], the firings without explanation, and the deficient board strength and organizational leadership” lead White to conclude the board needs to resign. “This was not a senior staff problem. This was, and quite possibly still is, a board problem,” White states. As one donor told him, “Some of them [the board members] might have been heroes on the battlefield, but they are all cowards in the boardroom.” 

4. One board member, Richard Jones, is a senior executive at CBS, and also held board positions at two other veterans’ charities who were hostile to W.W.P. and therefore had a serious conflict of interest as the crisis developed. He had a duty to recuse himself from the investigation. Instead, he was involved in overseeing W.W.P.’s response.

5. The report also takes to task the evaluations of Charity Navigator and questions its ability to realistically evaluate the work charities perform. He points out, however, that even within its limited parameters, W.W.P. performed well under he leadership of Nardizzi and Giordano.

6. The report also touches upon the jealousies of competing veterans’ advocacy groups and members of the military who resented the success of W.W.P. and might have had an interest in it failing.

The report begs for a more extensive investigation into the motivations and possible cooperation among those behind the attacks and the abject failure of two major news entities to conduct a fair and balanced report. It raises serious questions about Richard Jones and his potential connections to senior members of the military who were hostile to W.W.P. It also shines a light on the rest of the W.W.P. board, and those in or supporting some other veterans’ advocacy nonprofits. Go to bit.ly/dwwwp2016 for a full copy of the report.

PETER HONERKAMP

A Real ‘Republican’t’

Springs

September 12, 2016

Dear David,

Zika is our nation’s number-one health crisis, causing birth defects, brain damage, and death. According to the Centers for Disease Control, New York State has the largest percentage of Zika cases (23 percent of the nation’s total), with more than 660 persons infected, yet our First Congressional District representative, Lee Zeldin, was playing Tea Party political games rather than working to pass the bipartisan bill funding research that can end this scourge, knowing the C.D.C.’s Zika budget runs out within the month.

Of all the members in the majority-led Republican Congress, which ultimately passed the bill on to the Senate, Lee Zeldin’s vote against funding Zika research was an extreme minority position. Mr. Zeldin is a true outlier, an extremist, a real “Republican’t” who can’t agree on facts, can’t agree with science, and can’t even agree with his own party. Whether it’s the lip service he gives to our vets when voting against increased military spending and support for our vets (H.R. 1314) or voting against the Zika bill, Lee Zeldin is a political extremist, far to the right of his Long Island neo-con colleague, Congressman Peter King. 

Are these the values we, as hard-working Americans, support? No!

Our First Congressional District needs Anna Throne-Holst elected as our representative, with her proven track record of strong fiscal management, intelligence, and fact-based decision making. Nothing I have witnessed during his previous two years in office has changed my mind; Lee Zeldin is a lazy do-nothing congressman, and this won’t-do congressman just won’t do this November.

A physician once told me, “The cure is never far from the disease.” And with that thought, our cure this November is electing Anna Throne-Holst to Congress. Like Zika, Lee Zeldin’s gotta go.

ALEX MILLER

The Flim-Flam Man

Springs

  September 5, 2016

Dear David

 I don’t know about you, but to me this political campaign seems to be endless and disturbing! I just want the bloody thing over. This is the longest, dirtiest, ugliest, and most obscene campaign ever, prolonged and fueled by endless bags of money.

Paul Krugman has written a brilliant Op-Ed in The New York Times today. It is in response to this week’s commander-in-chief TV forum that we all watched. No question Matt Lauer conducted a very uneven and not very balanced interview of the two candidates. Oft-repeated lies were repeated and allowed to stand by a not-very-good moderator.

In this Op-Ed, the propaganda “big liar technique” was explained. This method is used by totalitarian regimes. It was perfected by the Germans in World War II. “The lies are constant, coming in a steady torrent, and are never acknowledged,” and, I might add, not really challenged. There are big lies and little lies. Remember Arabs celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey that never happened, remember how Donald Trump “never endorsed” the Shock and Awe war? Remember the stupid birther nonsense that went on forever and now is a non-subject? Remember the accusation that Obama and Clinton founded ISIS? Remember the admiring and constant admiration of Putin, and denigration and accusation that American military commanders have been “reduced to rubble” (whatever this means — it means nothing)? Remember “I will release my tax returns,” remember “I love Hispanics, they are hard-working,” and the Trump taco bowl, or the dopey attacks on Hillary Clinton’s health? This is nuts and a waste of time, and oh, so dangerous. These outrageous assertions and untruths are simply repeated ad nauseam. 

Lies, innuendos, disparaging judgments based on nothing. Guilt by association and more lies. Are we really that stupid?

Donald Trump is not a reputable or responsible candidate. He is the reality TV spectacle. His whole life has been a spectacle. He thrives on being the spectacle. He promotes himself. He always has, and he always will. Meanwhile, Trump & Co. is renting his plane to the campaign, renting the golden Trump Tower and other venues to the campaign (of course collecting money from the R.N.C. and donors for these expenses). He is selling his steaks, books on self written by others, water, ties, hats, T-shirts, suits, his international glam lifestyle — Mar-a-Lago, and God knows what else, beauty contests in Russia, maybe a golf course in Scotland. He and the offspring are expanding the Trump brand, aura, and profits. It’s the family business. Next he wants his own TV news network, and he is using this campaign for personal purposes. He is this century’s P.T. Barnum. He is the flim-flam man. And right now, this man leads the Republican Party.

Remember Marshall McLuhan? “The medium is the message.” This is all too terrifying!

BETSY RUTH

Plenty of Time

Springs

September 12, 2016

Dear David,

The U.S. Senate is back from a seven-week break and will be in session for only a few weeks before breaking again in October. That is, however, plenty of time to hold a hearing for the Supreme Court nominee Judge Merrick Garland.

There’s no legitimate, responsible, justifiable reason to postpone until after the presidential election. Right now is the time to speak up, to call for a fair hearing for Judge Garland, and to remind senators that giving fair consideration to a Supreme Court nominee is part of their constitutional responsibility.

JAMIE LERNER

His Own Words

East Hampton

September 7, 2016

Dear Editor,

Everyone knows I am a Hillary Clinton supporter, but I only quote her opponent with his own words — no need to prove anything.

We now know from his recent appearance at a military forum just what Donald Trump would have done if he was president at the time we ended the war in Iraq. He would have taken all the Iraqi oil, as if the Iraqi people were our opponents in the war, thus destroying their chance to reconstitute and rebuild their country. 

Terrific! We can do what other invading countries do around the world: Kill the enemy, bomb and destroy their cities, rape their women, say it is for their own good, and take their assets.

Then, stating that he is able to read the body language of National Security Agency employees sent to brief him, and determine that they were frustrated at not being listened to by the president and Hillary Clinton, he followed that mystic talent with yapping, with chutzpah beyond belief, that he knows more about ISIL than our generals do, and he calls them “rubble.”

Yeah, yeah, I know the Hillary Clinton emails, so what? And the Clinton Foundation, again so what? If she parsed her words, etc., it was in defense against charges of wrongdoing and mistakes she admits. Trump, on the other hand, is a serial liar, fabricator, thief of taxpayer money, no-knowledge individual who would send this country into a death spiral.

Vote, and vote Clinton.

RICHARD P. HIGER

Old Ghosts Ain’t Gone

Montauk

August 30, 2016

To the Editor, 

August 26 is my late grandmother Jean Fisher’s birthday. This is also the date here in 2016 that Sanchez, the young Yankee catcher, hit his 10th home run in 21 games. He also won player of the week twice in a row. His 10 home runs in 21 games is the third fastest it has ever been done in M.L.B. history by a rookie. If you notice, the Yankees have some good new talent. It might awaken some of the memories of the past.

Okay, anyway, Jeannie passed away in 2008. She was a great, grand woman, born by the Hudson River, upstate. She left New York about 1900 and lived to be 97 years old. In fact, about one year before she passed away, my dad announced to the family that she had gone to the big guy upstairs. 

Much, much to my surprise was I when I called, to have her barely awake and talking to me lightly about anything, and to say that maybe those old ghosts ain’t gone yet.

Well, with the Yanks making news with a handful of young guys, maybe those old ghosts really ain’t gone yet. 

The end.

KALEB FISHER