GERSHON | Why I Am Voting for Perry, by an ex-Republican

Why Is Zeldin Smiling?

The following op-ed by former Republican Michael Koegler appeared in the Southampton Press this week. 

I thank Mr. Koegler for an astonishingly clear and simple statement why defeating Lee Zeldin is such a priority right now for Americans concerned about keeping their democracy.

Zeldin is a mini-Trump and is a weak spokesperson for his own district. Much worse, he does not represent America because his Tea Party gang is part of the reason his party in Congress does not provide an adequate check on a President who daily shows his disrespect of our Constitution. Zeldin must be voted out on November 6.  Vote for Perry Gershon. Volunteer. Give money. One place to go – https://www.perrygershon.com.

P.S. Oct. 22: Don't miss Rachel Maddow's takedown of a sleazy Lee Zeldin voter-suppression tactic, sending mailers to Democrats with the wrong deadline for sending in absentee ballots. He did it in 2016 and said "Oops, sorry." Then he does it again in 2018 and says: "Oops, sorry." It's like the song "I didn't know the gun was loaded, I'm so sorry my friend," which goes on for several verses and several accidental deaths. Here's the Rachel Maddow clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3pK9dspnDQ.

Why I Am Voting for Perry, By Michael Koegler

I have been following the race in NY01 from the very beginning of the primary season. The first time I met Perry Gershon was at the Democratic candidate’s forum held at the Stony Brook College campus in Southampton on January 6^th. At that time there were six candidates vying to unseat incumbent Republican Lee Zeldin in this year’s general election. All of the candidates made their pitches regarding healthcare, gun control and issues related to international relations such as moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. I had not made up my mind as to whom I would support and went to the event with an open mind. I listened to all of the candidates articulate their positions on many of these important issues and decided that Perry Gershon was the best one of the group to challenge Lee Zeldin in the general election.

Fast-forward nine months and here we are six weeks away from one of the most important elections in the history of the United States. That is a bold statement so let me try to explain why I feel that way.

There used to be a time not too long ago when I was a Republican. I switched my affiliation after the 2008 financial crisis because I felt that the Republican Party had lost its way as a result of the Tea Party and the ultra-partisan politics that they ushered in. No one represents the ultra-partisan Tea Party politics in this country more than Lee Zeldin.

During his term in office, Lee Zeldin has showered praise on Donald Trump and demonized all of those that have been critical of him and his administration. He has enabled Trump’s criticism of the press, FBI, justice department, intelligence community and anyone else that happens to be the target of a Trump tweet storm. He is not willing to provide a check to Trump’s power and been nothing less than a Trump sycophant, parroting his hateful and petty rhetoric without regard for the damage it causes our Democracy. Zeldin has also perpetuated many of Trump’s conspiracy theories, including his claims that there was no election interference by the Russian government and that the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt.

It is one thing to play partisan politics, but another thing altogether when you fail in your responsibility to defend our Democracy and the constitution. Zeldin’s unwillingness to keep a check on Donald Trump is the single biggest reason to vote for Perry Gershon in November. To be clear, I do not believe that Trump should be impeached, but we desperately need a check on his power. Lee Zeldin is not willing to do that, but Perry Gershon is. It is time for change.

Double Feature: Malpede and Hansen on April 8

Karen Malpede and James Hansen, April 8. The Science section of the New York Times has a recommendation that we see "Extreme Whether" by Karen Malpede, who is an advocacy playwright (my term). Her cause in this case is the continuance of Planet Earth. Personally, I am glad that the Earth has a strong advocate. A special treat on Monday, April 8, will be a talk afterwards by James Hansen.

Extreme Whether. A play by Karen Malpede. Theater for the New City. 155 First Avenue. Readings April 8 at 7 p.m. (withJames Hansen) and April 13 at 8 p.m. $5. A new “eco-drama” about climate change will have two readings this month. Set in upstate New York during the record-hot summers of 2004 and 2012, the play pits brother against sister in a bitter debate about the future of the planet. In one corner is John Bjornson, a composite of famous climatologists. In the other is his twin sister, Jeanne, an energy spokeswoman married to a skeptical lobbyist. “The play poses this most difficult question of whether we can act in our own defense” when faced with a global threat, says the playwright, Karen Malpede, a twin herself. After the reading on Monday, James Hansen, the NASA climate scientist who is retiring from the agency this week, will speak to the audience on how “we are nearly out of time, if we want to avoid creating a situation that will be out of control for today’s young people.”

Malcolm Bowman. Professor Malcolm Bowman was on Dan Rather's program in February. He is chair of the Marine and Atmospheric Department at Stony Brook University.  Chelsea civic leader Bob Trentlyon brought this to my attention, along with Prof. Bowman's prescriptions for post-Sandy action in NJ and NY, which I summarize next. A key point is that favoring storm-surge barriers does not necessarily mean being opposed to resilience. Both are essential.

1. Weather Is Getting More Extreme.  The New York Harbor is at serious risk from extreme weather events and it will get worse in the decades ahead, and NY City's doctrine of "resilience" is necessary but not sufficient to protect the city against future catastrophes. We can learn much from the European experience - we have the advantage of being 75-100 years behind Amsterdam and Rotterdam's situation of being located 6'-12' below sea level - so we can learn.

2. Storm Surge Barriers Are Needed. Long-term protection (up to 150 years) requires construction of storm surge barriers augmented by enhanced sand dunes along the ocean shorelines (up to 30 feet high and several hundred yards wide), similar to those already in operation in St Petersburg, Russia, and the Netherlands. Without barriers, rising sea levels will submerge New York City as we know it. Seawalls, levees, barriers, pumps and enhanced dunes could extend  protection to the City for perhaps 200-250 years more.

3. New Roads and Rails Make It Feasible. To help make the project economically and politically feasible, an Outer Harbor Gateway could be constructed to combine storm-surge protection with a multipurpose traffic addition:

• a 6-lane interstate toll road-bypass from northern NJ to Long Island/JFK airport, and
• a light rail connection between Newark and JFK airports.

4. The Army Corps Should Evaluate Needs. As a first step, the US Army Corps of Engineers should detail oceanographic, meteorological, geological and engineering aspects of storm surges, plus an investigation of suitable locations for storm surge protection. The study should evaluate the likely effects on ocean circulation and flushing, ecology, fisheries, transportation, legal issues, social justice issues, and economics.