R&R – Reachout and Rebuild

A suggestion from Pamela Keen:

It is completely legal in NY State to choose where you wish to vote as long as you don’t vote twice (in different locations), which is voter fraud.

2nd homeowners, and even those that rent for the summer months, with evidence such as utility bills, may choose to vote in CD-1.  Here are some useful on line resources:

1. a court case upholding voting rights for part-time residents in Southampton

2. a useful website explaining your rights

3. you can register on-line

Get some forms and have them handy.  Bring them to events and share them with your friends. For example, hand out registration forms at your 4th of July barbecue party!

It is a good idea to start now.

On WLNG, a Sag Harbor Radio talk show, you can hear Rep. Lee Zeldin express his opinion of the East Hampton Star!   In the last 7 minutes of the LNG call-in, Zeldin makes his comments on the Star: it is “biased” and “partisan” and he doesn’t read it… “it’s not even journalism!”

Well….  the East Hampton Star has a long tradition of publishing all letters to the editor they receive.  If the majority of the letters are critical of Trump/Zeldin, it reflects (a) the results of the 2016 election where some 60% of voters in East Hampton town voted against Zeldin/Trump, and (b) a ground-swell of anti-Trump resistance, unlike anything Mr. Zeldin and his supporters have ever seen before, and it is only getting stronger with every executive order coming from the White House with applause from Mr. Zeldin.  If they need a historical primer on resistance movements they could check here!

So many great cartoons on United Airlines. This one circulated on Social media is my favorite:

50 years ago I attended the very first Rolling Stones concert in Zurich, Switzerland, in April 1967. It was held in the largest indoor sports stadium in town. I was a high school student with a group of friends. I remember standing on my chair with my girl friend on my shoulders, to catch a glimpse of Mick Jagger. The concert was marred by some rowdy young people. They trashed the chairs and the next day’s press was not friendly!

For me, this was the first of a series of “demonstrations” by restless young people that spread across the globe in the late 1960s. Their most famed leaders were people like Angela Davis (in California) and Daniel Cohn Bendit, a student leader in France, nicknamed “Dany le Rouge”. The demonstrations were ubiquitous, even in peaceful and wealthy Zurich! What was initially lacking it seemed, was a cause or an issue. While one of my best friends promptly bought Mao’s little red book and brought it to school for all  to see, most of us were still learning about the issues: the domino theory, invoked to justify the US involvement in Vietnam, the intractable Israel/Arab conflict, and the subsequent 7 day war, etc. But then, there were those TV images of Buddhist monks setting themselves on fire in Saigon. Very soon the anti-war sentiment was adopted as our cause.

Ultimately, the resistance to the war paid off. With worldwide un-abating demonstrations, the war was ended under President Nixon. Neither the Democratic party nor the Republican party (both had been involved in the war over the years), were able to harness this anti-war movement, which was probably the largest resistance movement in my lifetime. Although the anti-war sentiment was widespread, this was most visibly a movement of young people, often but not always, overlapping with the “hippie” subculture and with those enthralled by the Woodstock music festival.

A quite different example of widespread resistance was the Arab Spring. This movement was concentrated in the Arab/Muslim world. The cause was to overthrow a number of corrupt regimes that people had grown to hate. The demand for regime change and social justice had inclusive appeal, uniting people from different groups in society. The resistance followers were not necessarily defined by their socio-economic status, their age or their politics (religious factions versus pro-western secular factions). The opposition to those in power was the common thread.

Then we had the resistance of the Tea Party which was born the moment the United States elected it’s first African-American President. Republican power brokers met on inauguration day to plot the demise of the Obama presidency. The nascent Tea Party groups were all to eager to join a resistance, which coalesced around the issue of healthcare and the mocking term ‘Obamacare’ was coined. Compared to the anti-war resistance, this was a different demographic: older folks, much more slanted to the political right and, one has to suspect, quite a few people with racist feelings.

Our current anti-Trump resistance is widespread and worldwide! It involves both old and young. It is still struggling to find a single hallmark issue. Because of the tsunami of radical changes imposed by Presidential executive orders it is difficult to choose a single issue. The resistance is, however, united in its strong anti-Trump sentiment. It is too early to tell what will become of it and whether it will survive. Will it be adopt by the Democratic Party, as the Tea Party movement was adopted by the Republicans and ultimately shaped the policies of the Republican party?

Political resistance movements of this magnitude are likely to have consequences. Just like the Vietnam war was ended by the anti-war movement, autocratic regimes were toppled during the Arab Spring, and the US government was shut down by the Tea Party, the anti-Trump resistance will eventually have consequences.

Submitted by Bruce Colbath, East Hampton

On January 3, 2017, US Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) proposed a “gun rights expansion” bill, (H.R. 38, The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill of 2017).  Our Congressman, Lee Zeldin, co-sponsored this ill-conceived bill which, not surprisingly, is strongly supported by the NRA.  To summarize the bill and to trivialize its impact, Mr. Hudson’s website asks, “Your driver’s license works in every state, why not your concealed carry permit?”  In the world of Mr. Hudson and Mr. Zeldin, this bill should be seen as little more than a matter of convenience for gun owners.  Indeed, Mr. Zeldin said so much when questioned about his support of this bill during his recent telephonic “town hall.”  However, we all know the difference between guns and cars and there are elements in this national proposal that endanger all New Yorkers.

To provide background, while all 50 states allow their residents to carry concealed weapons, currently, 10 have enacted permit-less concealed carry laws (meaning no background checks or other regulation).  New York regulates concealed carry permits, requiring training and rejecting applicants with impaired mental capacity or illness, certain criminal convictions and other criteria.  The Federal law championed by Mr. Zeldin, if passed, would require New York (as well as every other state) to honor concealed weapon permits from every other state, as well as allow gunbearers from states not requiring permits.  The upshot is that the bill would allow anyone with a concealed weapon, permitted or not, to bring that weapon into New York, regardless of whether that person could have obtained a concealed carry permit under New York law.  The bill would also allow concealed guns in all national parks and in New York schools, as carriers would not be subject to the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990.   Additionally, by sponsoring the bill, Mr. Zeldin supports language that would allow gun owners to sue municipalities, police forces, or business owners who seek to prohibit concealed weapons on their premises.  Indeed, the bill would put police in danger of being sued even if they attempted to verify a permit.

It should come as no surprise that numerous law enforcement agencies have denounced concealed carry reciprocity, including the sixty-six largest law enforcement organizations in the country.  Mr. Zeldin’s legislative priorities purportedly include a promise to help keep our communities safer.  In pushing H.R. 38, Mr. Zeldin thumbs his nose at that promise, our law enforcement agencies and us.

I am not opposed to guns.  My brother and I grew up in rural New Jersey with guns in our home.  We learned how to handle guns safely and hunted with our dad until urbanization took over our hunting grounds.  But this bill portends danger and could compromise the safety of innocent New Yorkers.  The Second Amendment will not be endangered if this bill does not pass.

Last year, Mr. Hudson also tried to foist a reciprocity bill, which many law enforcement agencies also opposed.  It failed.  H.R. 38 should fail as well.  Please speak out against H.R. 38 while you can.