Suffolk Closeup - "Big Protest On January 6th"

SUFFOLK CLOSEUP

By Karl Grossman

“A Single Day Shakes…One Nation to the Core,” said one front-page headline.

As the attack by rioters on the Capitol shook the nation, it also shook this area and this state—hard.

As Rob Colarco, the presiding officer of the Suffolk County Legislature, declared: “I watched with shock and horror as the United States Capitol was stormed by rioters today…This deadly attack on a national institution…is an assault on our country and what we stand for.” .

Governor Andrew Cuomo said: “The cornerstone of our democracy is the peaceful transfer of power. We must call this what it actually is: a failed attempt at a coup. This is the final chapter of an incompetent, cruel, and divisive administration that has trampled on the Constitution and the rule of law at every turn, and we won’t let President Trump, the members of Congress who enable him, or the lawless mob that stormed our nation’s Capitol steal our democracy.”

It was not a surprise. 

Mr. Trump tweeted followers on December 20^th—“Big protest in DC on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”

And then, in a speech in front of The White House last Wednesday, addressing his backers who had arrived, said: “We’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue…and we’re going to the Capitol.” He added: “You have to be strong.”

His call was preceded by his lawyer, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, proclaiming “let’s have trial by combat.” Mr. Giuliani represented Mr. Trump in many courts in challenges to his election defeat with claims that judges found untrue.  

At the Capitol, members of the House of Representatives and Senate were getting set to cast ballots in support or opposition to state votes in the Electoral College determining Joe Biden was the winner. 

“Trump Incites Mob,” was the banner headline across the front-page of The New York Times. Below it were photos of rioters getting into the Capitol last week including into the House and Senate chambers. “So this is how it ends,” began one, written by Peter Baker, chief White House correspondent for the Times and now writing a book on Mr. Trump’s time in office. The Trump presidency, it went on, “rooted from the beginning in anger, division and conspiracy-mongering, comes to a close with a violent mob storming the Capitol at the instigation of a defeated leader trying to hang onto power as if America were just another authoritarian nation. The scenes in Washington would have once been unimaginable: A rampage through the citadel of American democracy.”

After the riot was finally over—and why did it take so many hours for police reinforcements and the National Guard to arrive?—members of the House and Senate ,who had been taken to “secure” locations, returned under guard to discuss and cast ballots on the Electoral College vote. They certified it. 

Two of the three House members representing Suffolk, Democrat Tom Suozzi and Republican Andrew Garbarino voted yes. Republican Lee Zeldin, who has been extremely close to Mr. Trump, was among 121 GOPers who voted no to certifying Mr. Biden as the winner. And he issued a statement about the riot saying, “This should never be the scene at the U.S. Capitol.” Mr. Zeldin didn’t mention Mr. Trump or his incitement.

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, after the lawmakers reconvened, said he had “never lived through or even imagined an experience like we have just witnessed in this Capitol….the final, terrible, indelible legacy of the 45th president of the United States, undoubtedly our worst.”

David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker, in a piece done right after Election Day 2016, wrote: “The election of Donald Trump…is nothing less than a tragedy for the American republic, a tragedy for the Constitution, and a triumph for the forces, at home and abroad, of nativism, authoritarianism, misogyny, and racism.” There would be “miseries to come.” He warned against an “attempt to normalize” the election of Mr. Trump, “a flim-flam man” with “disdain for democratic norms.” 

Articles I’ve written in this period include “On Trump the Con Man” and “Trump’s Offshore Drilling Plan” on CounterPunch, and TV programs I’ve done include “The Trump Nuclear Push” and “Trump’s Space Force” (www.envirovideo.com) 

CNN anchor Don Lemon of Sag Harbor said after the insurrection at the Capitol ended: “We have never seen a day like today.” He called Mr. Trump “the worst of the worst” of U.S. presidents. Another Sag Harbor resident, Carl Bernstein, of Watergate fame, said Mr. Trump “will be in our history books as a dark, dark stain unlike any president of the United States.”

Karl Grossman is a veteran investigative reporter and columnist, the winner of numerous awards for his work and a member of the L.I. Journalism Hall of Fame. He is a professor of journalism at SUNY/College at Old Westbury and the author of six books. 

Suffolk Closeup - LIPA's Future Will Be Decided In March

SUFFOLK CLOSEUP 

By Karl Grossman

The Long Island Power Authority will decide in March whether to continue having an outside private company provide electric service—so far it has used KeySpan, National Grid and now PSEG—or become a true public power utility and supply the electricity itself.

Eyed as a model for LIPA when it was established by the Long Island Power Act of 1985 was the Sacramento Municipal Utility District in California. SMUD is a well-run true public power utility, the “the nation’s sixth-largest community-owned electric utility,” it notes. It serves 1.6 million customers, a customer base comparable to LIPA’s. And, importantly, it not only provides electric service itself but SMUD has locally-elected trustees in charge.

It’s high time for a return to that original vision of LIPA—to provide electric service itself with elected trustees responsible for its management and the charting of Long Island’s electric future in harmony with the will of Long Islanders.

But after the Long Island Power Act was passed, having the people of Long Island vote for LIPA trustees was pushed aside by then Governor Mario Cuomo and subsequently formally eliminated by his successor, George Pataki. Instead, a scheme was imposed of having the governor, the speaker of the State Assembly and leader of the State Senate—the oft-criticized “three men in a room”—appoint LIPA’s trustees. From Albany, they have had a huge hold over LIPA.

Citizens to Replace LILCO was the key grassroots organization that pushed for creation of LIPA—with strong support of Long Islanders and the island’s government officials.

“THE PROBLEM ISN’T JUST SHOREHAM. THE PROBLEM IS LILCO!” was the headline of a full-page advertisement that Citizens to Replace LILCO placed in many newspapers in the early 1980s. The “Shoreham” in the ad was the nuclear power plant that the now defunct Long Island Lighting Company, LILCO, was building, one of many nuclear power plants it sought to construct on Long Island. 

A state-created Long Island Power Authority, said the ad, “would protect our safety. Here’s the plain fact: LILCO’s life depends on opening Shoreham…And this despite Shoreham’s safety problems. That’s why they’re [LILCO] spending a fortune on propaganda while we put up with terrible service. A Long Island Power Authority would close Shoreham…and supply dependable, safe power.” It continued: “If you’ve had it with incompetence and arrogance…if you’re fed up with one of the country’s worst utilities—join us now.”

The head of Citizens to Replace LILCO, Maurice Barbash, in explaining its strategy, said with creation of LIPA the aim would be to stop the Shoreham plant from going into operation and having “an elected non-partisan board” of LIPA that “would be, unlike LILCO, accountable to the people.”

A Newsday survey at the time found a solid majority of Long Islanders in favor of a public power utility here. The Long Island Power Act began: “The legislature hereby finds and declares that an economic emergency exists in the Long Island Lighting Company service area.” It cited “mismanagement and imprudent decisions by LILCO.” The governmental effort was bipartisan. Mr. Cuomo voiced his backing saying “I very much like the idea of public power” pointing to how it takes the profiteering out of supplying electricity. And he signed the act. 

“This is a movement of the people by the people for the people,” said Leon Campo, a member of the steering committee of Citizens to Replace LILCO and chairman of the Suffolk-based Peoples’ Action Coalition.  

And LILCO, a terribly run private utility, indeed in the 1930s and 1940s on the brink of bankruptcy, was replaced by a Long Island Power Authority. 

But LIPA wasn’t allowed to become a public power utility like SMUD. LIPA’s system of jobbing out electric service has faced enormous criticism—justifiably. Contractor KeySpan was taken over by National Grid based in London, England and National Grid was ousted as a LIPA contractor for its poor performance during Superstorm Sandy. It was replaced by Newark, New Jersey based PSEG which is now facing termination for its poor performance during Tropical Storm Isaias in August. Meanwhile, despite annual efforts by State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele, Jr. of Sag Harbor to have LIPA’s trustees elected, that hasn’t happened. 

How LIPA can still become a public power utility like SMUD, providing electric service itself and with a board chosen by the votes of Long Islanders—and more on SMUD—next week.

Karl Grossman is a veteran investigative reporter and columnist, the winner of numerous awards for his work and a member of the L.I. Journalism Hall of Fame. He is a professor of journalism at SUNY/College at Old Westbury and the author of six books. 

Suffolk Closeup - Plans For Nuclear Power Plants On The Moon And Mars

SUFFOLK CLOSEUP

By Karl Grossman

Suffolk County is nuclear-free as a result of the battles to stop the Shoreham nuclear power plant from going into operation and preventing the construction of the many other nuclear power plants the Long Island Lighting Company planned to build here. Indeed, all over the United States there have been opposition to nuclear power plants which has caused their number to be reduced. 

But there’s a look upward for using nuclear power.

There are now plans afoot to put nuclear power plants on the Moon and Mars for would-be colonies. “US Eyes Building Nuclear Power Plants for Moon and Mars,” declared the headline this July of an Associated Press dispatch.  

There’s also work on nuclear propulsion in space. In July, too, the White House National Space Council issued a strategy for space exploration that includes “nuclear propulsion methods.” Nuclear propulsion, its promoters say, would get astronauts to Mars quicker. 

And last week The White House released a “National Strategy for Space Nuclear Power” elaborating on its desire for nuclear power and nuclear propulsion in space.

Meanwhile, Elon Musk, founder and CEO of SpaceX, has been touting the detonation of nuclear bombs on Mars to, he says, “transform it into an Earth-like planet.”  As Business Insider has reported, Musk “believes it will help warm the planet and make it more hospitable for human life.” The website www.space.com says: “The explosions would vaporize a fair chunk of Mars’ ice caps, liberating enough water vapor and carbon dioxide…to warm up the planet substantially, the idea goes.”   

It’s been projected that it would take more than 10,000 nuclear bombs to carry out the Musk scheme. SpaceX is selling T-shirts emblazoned with the words “Nuke Mars.” Check out SpaceX selling “Nuke Mars” T-shirts online at: https://shop.spacex.com/products/nuke-mars-t-shirt

Musk’s nuclear bomb of choice: hydrogen bombs. The detonations would render Mars radioactive

The nuclear bombs would be carried to Mars 1,000 SpaceX Starships that Musk wants to build—like the one that blew up in a fireball this month. “Fortunately,” reported Lester Holt on NBC Nightly News the next evening, “no one was aboard.” But what if nuclear materials—reactors headed for the Moon or Mars, for example—had been aboard?

The nuclear space issue is one I got into 35 years ago when I learned from reading a U.S. Department of Energy newsletter about two space shuttles to be launched the following year with plutonium aboard. One shuttle was the Challenger. It was to carry up a space probe loaded with 24.2 pounds of plutonium. The plutonium was to be used as fuel in radioisotope thermoelectric generators to provide a few hundred watts of electricity for the space probe’s onboard instruments. The shuttles were to release the probes upon achieving orbit. 

I asked DOE and NASA under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act what would happen if there was an accident on launch or lower or upper atmosphere and what would be the consequences to people in Florida if the plutonium was dispersed in an accident. For 10 months DOE and NASA blocked my receiving information. Finally, after my challenges to this, they sent documents to my post office box here in Suffolk claiming the likelihood of an accident releasing plutonium was “small due to the high reliability inherent in the design of the Space Shuttle.” Then, on January 28, 1986, the Challenger blew up. On its next mission, in May 1986, it was to have aboard the plutonium, the most deadly of all radioactive substances.

And I’ve been pursuing the issue of using nuclear in space ever since authoring two books, one The Wrong Stuff, and writing and presenting three TV documentaries, and penning hundreds of newspaper, magazine and internet articles.

There are safe alternatives to the use of nuclear in space. Said the headline in Universe Today last month, “Solar Power is Best for Mars Colonies.” The extensive piece stated how “a NASA-sponsored MIT think-tank has weighed up the future energy needs of a manned settlement on Mars and arrived at an interesting conclusion…solar arrays might function just as well, if not better, than the nuclear options.” Likewise, solar power is seen as abundant on the Moon. A 2016 Discover magazine piece was headlined “How to Harvest Terawatts of Solar Power on the Moon” and spoke of the Japanese corporation, Shimizu, “gearing up to develop solar power on the moo=

As tor propulsion, there are solar sails. The magazine New Scientist published a comprehensive article in October titled, “The new age of sail,” with a subhead: “We are on the cusp of a new type of space travel that can take us to places no rocket could ever visit.” Japan sent up its Ikaros spacecraft in 2010 using energy emitted from the sun to sail in the vacuum of space. Last year, the LightSail 2 mission of the U.S.-based Planetary Society was launched and is still up in space flying with the sun’s energy. The New Scientist article piece spoke of scientists wanting to use solar sails “to set a course for worlds currently far beyond our reach—namely the planets orbiting our nearest star, Alpha Centauri.”

Solar power has also begun to replace plutonium power on space probes. NASA in 2011 launched its Juno space probe on a mission to Jupiter. It uses three solar arrays instead of nuclear power to generate onboard electricity. Juno is still up there, orbiting and studying far-off Jupiter.

Karl Grossman is a veteran investigative reporter and columnist, the winner of numerous awards for his work and a member of the L.I. Journalism Hall of Fame. He is a professor of journalism at SUNY/College at Old Westbury and the author of six books. 

Remembering John J Mullen And LILCO'S Plan For A "Nuclear Power Park"

SUFFOLK CLOSEUP

By Karl Grossman

 John J. Mullen, a leading wordsmith of the anti-nuclear power movement on Long Island, died last month. Working pro bono with attorney Tom Twomey, who passed away in 2014, Mullen used his great gift at language and brilliance at advertising and direct-mail to challenge the scheme of the Long Island Lighting Company to turn Suffolk County into a “Nuclear Power Park.”

Yes, “Nuclear Power Park.” Mr. Twomey obtained—and Mr. Mullen brought to public attention—a four-inch-thick “Nuclear Power Park Report” put together by LILCO. 

Nuclear power plants would be built throughout Suffolk under LILCO’s plan to become a major distributor of nuclear-generated electricity on the U.S. East Coast—with the people of the county undergoing the enormous risks of having the counterparts of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear power plants here.

Four nuclear power plants would be built along the Long Island Sound in Jamesport. It was during the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission hearings on the LILCO Jamesport project that Mr. Twomey secured the “Nuclear Power Park Report.”

And, three nuclear power plants were supposed to rise 30 miles to the west of Jamesport, at Shoreham. The first, what was referred to in NRC licensing proceeding papers, as Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 1, was completed and underwent problem-plagued low-power testing. It was stopped from going into commercial operation by opposition at the grassroots and by Suffolk and New York State governments. It now sits, a cement hulk, its nuclear innards removed, with its demolition deemed too expensive by the Long Island Power Authority, to which LILCO turned it over for a nominal $1.  There would be no Shoreham Nuclear Power Stations 2 and 3 nor were there to be any of the other nuclear plants LILCO planned elsewhere in Suffolk.

Mr. Mullen had been advertising director of the Long Island Traveler-Watchman in Mattituck when the big nuclear power push and resulting strong resistance —a veritable energy “Battle of Long Island”—was erupting. He would later work for other newspapers in Suffolk. 

Newspapering was in John’s family. His father, also John J. Mullen, was circulation director and a board member of Newsday. The elder Mr. Mullen, John would recount, was the “right-hand man” to Alicia Patterson, the daughter of the founder of the New York Daily News, as she struck out on her own to found and run on Long Island her own newspaper, Newsday. The Mullens lived, and John grew up, in Garden City, where Newsday was long published. 

Indeed, part of Mr. Mullen’s strategy in challenging nuclear power on Long Island was to put together a broadsheet newspaper, New York State Against Jamesport, on which he is listed as Publishing Director and Editor In Chief. 

John utilized a blunt “in-your-face” approach to taking on LILCO and its nuclear power scheme. For example, in an old yellowed copy I have kept of New York State Against Jamesport, there is a half-page declaration that John wrote titled: “TO THE SHAREOWNERS OF LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY, SHOULD YOU SELL NOW?”

 It began by speaking of the big nuclear push by LILCO, “the possibility of 20 nuclear power plants.” And, the LILCO shareowners were advised, “LILCO’s ambitious nuclear program could represent a bad investment for the company and a financial loss for its shareowners. There is growing resistance to nuclear power plants not only with the public but in financial institutions and shareowners.” And it went on with critical information.

John met the love of his life, Mary Ann McCaffrey, in 1979. Together, they would move to Manhattan and John would work at Oglivy & Mather where he was an executive in its direct response division. But they returned to Suffolk in 1984 establishing Mullen & McCaffrey, which since 1984 has been a crackerjack agency doing direct mail, fundraising, advertising and PR for a wide range of clients here especially environmental organizations. 

“Johnny is dead at 73 which is too soon, but he is kept alive for me by all the family and friends who are sharing their Johnny stories with me,” Mary Ann wrote after Mr. Mullen’s death.  “He told the truth—sometimes offending people—but was always forgiving and loving, and caring.” 

John Mullen of East Hampton was a Suffolk environmentalist of whom we should all be proud and indebted to for his superb work in preventing Suffolk from becoming a “Nuclear Power Park,” and, on the positive side, along with Mary Ann assisting so many good groups and people here.

Karl Grossman is a veteran investigative reporter and columnist, the winner of numerous awards for his work and a member of the L.I. Journalism Hall of Fame. He is a professor of journalism at SUNY/College at Old Westbury and the author of six books. 

Suffolk Closeup - Finally Election Results Are In

SUFFOLK CLOSEUP

By Karl Grossman

Finally, the results are in. It turned out to be an Election Month, not the normal Election Day with a night on which results are available. But the COVID-19 pandemic has caused havoc in all human activities. In Suffolk like all over the United States, it took weeks to count the absentee ballots mailed in or dropped off by voters who didn’t want to go in-person to polling places on Election Day. 

Still, weeks later, an analysis of the finally final results in Suffolk provides messages. There was no “blue wave” here—a landslide that Democrats hoped for. Still, nationally, Donald Trump’s loss in the popular vote was significant. In Suffolk, his margin was 232 votes. It was 381,021 for Joe Biden for president and 381,253 for incumbent Trump, basically a tie here.  “A huge difference,” commented Southampton Town Democratic Chairman Gordon Herr, “from 2016 when he led by 50,000 votes” in Suffolk.

Did that impact the votes of others running on the Democratic line in Suffolk?

You wouldn’t know that from returns for the four State Senate seats—all won by Republicans. Winners (newcomers first) were: in the lst Senatorial District, Anthony Palumbo of New Suffolk; in the 2^nd Mario Mattera of St. James; in the 3^rd Alexis Weik of Sayville; and then re-elected in the 4^th, Phil Boyle of Bay Shore. 

With the victories of the four, Suffolk Republican Chairman Jesse Garcia declared, the Suffolk delegation “comprises 20% of the State Senate GOP Conference.” 

The biggest surprise in the State Senate contests was Ms. Weik’s win over Democratic incumbent Monica Martinez of Brentwood, a former teacher, assistant school principal and for five years a member of the Suffolk Legislature. With her election in 2018, Ms. Martinez became the first woman from Suffolk to ever have become a member of the State Senate. Now Ms. Weik, who has been Islip Town receiver of taxes, becomes the second. 

The loss in the 1st Congressional District of Democrat Nancy Goroff of Stony Brook against three-term Republican incumbent Lee Zeldin of Shirley—there were 205,715 votes for Mr. Zeldin and 169,294 for Dr. Goroff—casts questions about that race. 

The central theme of Dr. Goroff, a chemistry professor at Stony Brook University on leave as chair of its Chemistry Department, was her being a scientist. Her campaign literature and posters heralded the word scientist—as in Vote for Scientist Nancy Goroff. Science is extremely important, critical on the climate crisis and COVID-19 pandemic. 

She got the nomination by narrowly winning a Democratic primary over Perry Gershon of East Hampton and Suffolk Legislator Bridget Fleming of Noyac. 

Mr. Gershon had run against Mr. Zeldin two years ago and came close. He received 127,991 votes against 139,027 for Mr. Zeldin, 47% of the vote compared to 51.5% for Mr. Zeldin. Dr. Goroff this year received 45.1% and Mr. Zeldin upped his vote percentage to 54.9% 

Upon losing in 2018, Mr. Gershon’s embarked on a strategy that worked well in the lst C.D. in the past. Otis Pike of Riverhead never stopped running after he lost to incumbent Stuyvesant Wainright of Wainscott back in 1958. For two years, he went to numerous civic and community group events in the district aiming to get people to know him. And in 1960 Mr. Pike defeated four-term GOP incumbent Wainright, and held the position for 18 years, longer than anyone since the lst C.D. seat was established in 1789.

Mr. Gershon had been working hard to pull “another Otis Pike”—but then came the primary this June. In the three-way contest, he was edged out after months of meeting people and holding a series of town meetings in the district. Would it have been more effective for Democrats to go with Mr. Gershon and his face-to-face, personal strategy?

Ms. Fleming also could have been a strong candidate. Elected to the Suffolk Legislature in 2015 after five years as a Southampton Town Board member, she is known in a good portion of the lst C.D. And her background includes being an assistant DA in Manhattan, a member of the DA’s Sex Crimes Prosecution Unit and chief of its unit focusing on fraud in public programs. 

There was an outcome in a race for Southampton Town justice that ran against the grain of what’s become conventional political strategy in Suffolk. Karen M. Sartain of Westhampton, appointed this year to fill a vacant judgeship, won her first election running on just the Democratic line. She beat GOPer Patrick J. Gunn who ran on the Republican, Conservative, Working Families and Independence Party lines. A political belief in Suffolk for decades has been that it’s critical in winning for a major party candidate to also have minor party lines.  Ms. Sartain showed this is not always true.

Karl Grossman is a veteran investigative reporter and columnist, the winner of numerous awards for his work and a member of the L.I. Journalism Hall of Fame. He is a professor of journalism at SUNY/College at Old Westbury and the author of six books.