But I don’t always look on the bright side. To be honest, when things turn to worms, my immediate reaction is to stomp and slam cupboard doors, cursing my bad luck and snapping at the nearest living thing — any person, animal or even plant. (Though I do try to be nicer to my plants, because unlike people or pets, they don’t snap back.)

However, after I get that initial reaction out of my system, I default to the “bright side.” Things have turned to a bucket of worms? Good. Let’s go fishing. Life gave me lemons? Yay, let’s make lemonade.

That’s what happened in the IGA parking lot while talking with a friend. I heard the squawks of dozens of seagulls and,of course, I looked up. When I looked at my friend to say, “Don’t look up!” a seagull, or perhaps seven, let loose. On me. Direct hit. Hair, back, front, head to toes. People tried to help me but all that stuff does is smear. I drove home, cursing the whole way, wrapped in IGA grocery bags and threw out those clothes on my way to the shower.

How is there a bright side to being a target of an aerial poop bomb? Because it could have been worse. Way worse. Just a splitsecond before the assault I was gazing upward, mouth open, talking. Are you picturing it? Obviously, that’s the target they were going for. But the lemon-icing on the bird splat is that my friend bought me a souvenir T-shirt covered with fake seagull droppings. Yay me!

Often, when I force myself to look on the bright side, things turn out better than I’d ever expect, or dare I say deserve, which is what happened with me and Bruce Springsteen. Yes. That Bruce Springsteen.

He was on his “Born to Run” concert tour, and we got free tickets through Coecles Harbor Marina because Billy Joel was their customer. After a threeplus- hour drive to the Meadowlands, we were to grab our tickets at will-call. Since the tickets were free, I was expecting nosebleed seats, but that was okay because, Bruce plus Free equals Jackpot! But “Yay me!” turned into a bucket of worms real fast when our tickets were not at will-call. And the show was sold out, which was probably a blessing because even the cheap seats were hundreds of dollars.

Who knows if it was name-dropping “Coecles Harbor” or “Billy Joel,” but after a few minutes we were handed off to a lady with a clipboard and a walkie-talkie who said, “Follow me.” I wiped my tears and we followed as she led us not up, but down, down, down, to the rows of seats in a dark area behind the stage. By then I was sputtering, “Forget this! Let’s go home!”

My companion tried to calm me by saying, “Calm down!” (In recorded history, when has saying “Calm down!” ever worked?)

I tried though, telling myself that the bright side was a nice ride from Shelter Island to New Jersey. And back. Yay me.

And just like that, things got brighter as we followed Miss Walkie-Talkie past the back of the stage to the floor level, finally stopping in the high-rent district, at two front-row seats just feet from the stage. So close I could look up Springsteen’s nose and by the end of the concert, when he was drenched and spraying sweat, it landed right on me. I kid you not. I could have reached out and touched his boot if it wasn’t for the mean-looking security guard who was already keeping an eye on me. What started out as a bummer turned into a great night.

A more recent “bright side” event happened last month after I’d donated a purse to a thrift shop. I’d swing through every week and it bothered me enormously to see it still there, forlorn and rejected by other thrifters. Finally, I paid the stinking $5 and bought it back. So what’s the bright side of that, paying again for a purse I didn’t want and no one else did either?

Tucked inside was a hundred-dollar bill I’d forgotten that I’d stashed into the deepest pocket when I bought the purse (the first time). Yay me! Of course, my “bright side” cheated some other thrifter out of their “Yay me!” moment, but come on, they had three weeks.

If there’s a lesson here, I guess it’s to try to always look on the bright side. And also in the deepest pockets.

Joanne Sherman is a Shelter Island resident and longtime contributor to Times Review Media Group.

The post Guest Column: The bright side appeared first on Riverhead News Review.

“Tell your sibling you’re sorry!”

Many parents have said this or a variation of it. It’s a parent’s early attempt at teaching a child to take responsibility for one’s actions and, as parents, of course, we all know that saying you’re sorry and feeling it may be very different. The latter is a more mature phase of human development.

Indeed, 100 years ago, Sigmund Freud developed the concept of the id, ego, and superego as a way of formulating personality structure. While many of his theories have been criticized and revamped over the years, the concept of an id, ego and superego remains a cornerstone of psychoanalytic thinking.

In a nutshell, the baby is born with an id, with only the interest of getting their basic needs met. Some needs may be survival-based (as in food or affection) and others may be pleasurebased (as in doing what they want). As the child grows and sees the world around them, reality sets in. This becomes the ego, a behavior system that understands that getting one’s needs met requires compromise, understanding of others and learning that certain behaviors will elicit negative responses.

Thus, telling your sibling you’re sorry is a reflection of a developing ego. But feeling actual remorse is the next phase, known as the superego. . In its most basic form, a superego is an internal sense of right and wrong — determined not by society or fear of punishment, but by its own personal barometer. The guilt that a parent may instill in a child becomes internalized, and a well-functioning adult is not driven by others’ condemnation, but by their own internal red light.

Unfortunately, this capability sometimes fails to develop. These people will not take responsibility for their behavior, and in not doing so tend to hurt those around them, whether they be family members, friends, or workplace associates. For these people, nothing is ever their fault. They find a way to blame everyone else for their own shortcomings, and most significantly, they do not seem to care if others are hurt by their actions.

Many of us know someone like this.. Some become criminals and others are manipulators who know how to find and hurt others. These people used to be the exception, but now they seem more prevalent.

These concepts made a lot of sense when I studied them in the 1970s. But it appears that in the 21st century, some of the old rules of right and wrong have blurred. Whereas feeling personal responsibility for wrongdoing was once held as an act of moral rectitude, more people now seem to view it as an act of weakness. This makes Freud’s theory less relevant.

In fact, some modern theorists are arguing that the traditional superego has been “emancipated,” allowing for a different standard of right and wrong. For example, psychoanalyst Janet Lieberman in her book “Clinical Evolutions and the Superego, Body and Gender in Psychoanalysis,” argues that there is a new superego where deception may go unpunished and greed and envy have increased. Technology has also changed the norms of what is considered acceptable behavior. While people used to be careful in how they spoke to each other, now it’s a free-for-all. In short, formerly accepted rules of integrity seems to be changing. And the old concept of guilt, that superego regulator, has now shifted to blame.

So, in this meaner world, how do you raise kids with a well-functioning superego? We want them to be kind, but we also want them to survive. Raising good children has always taken work, but in this era, it’s more challenging than ever. And what does a parent do when other parents’ main concern for their children is winning — no matter what.

First, a parent must continue to own their values on what is right and wrong. The world may be getting meaner, but the only way to stop it is to not succumb. Find like-minded parents whose values are also to teach right from wrong. If there is a bully in the group, all the parents should stand with the victim. There can never be too many discussions about the importance of kindness. Learn from the teacher who the kind kids are and encourage these friendships. The kind kids may not be the cool kids, but hopefully through conversations and good judgment, the right choices will prevail.

Modeling anti-racist behavior (yes, that still matters) and making it clear that all children are welcome will instill the kinds of values that make for a better community. Negativity heard in the home gets internalized. So does the ruthless winner-take-all attitude that has become so prevalent.

Once adolescence hits, that sweet child may become a stranger. Most important is to keep the lines of communication open. Teens often pretend they’re not listening, but in fact, they are. The old-fashioned values communicated in childhood may be rebelled against, but if that superego has developed, the rebellion will most likely be temporary.

Finally, back to taking responsibility for our actions. We all make mistakes and we all do bad things. Remember the adage that the cover-up is worse than the crime? Not owning up to bad behavior is worse. A healthy superego is never perfect. It knows right from wrong. And most importantly, it knows how to right a wrong.

Ms. Green is a social worker and co-chair of Shelter Island’s health and wellness committee.

The post Guest Spot: Nancy Green appeared first on Riverhead News Review.

During our time spent with Leah at her home in Delaware, I often had to tell myself: I’m not with a child who’s dying, I’m with a child who’s struggling. A horrid struggle for so many reasons, including chemo treatments, steroids, pain, nausea, spinal taps, a PICC (peripherally inserted central catheterization) line (replaced by a port in her chest) and hair loss.

Shortly after her diagnosis, Leah asked a medical person on her team if she’d be losing her hair. At such a young age, I was surprised she was aware of that possibility. I was reminded that the year before, she grew her hair much longer than usual. Her goal was to donate to a group that makes wigs for kids who have lost their hair due to cancer treatments. We’ve got great pictures of her the day she donated 12 inches of her gorgeous hair.

Childhood cancer is devastating for the whole family. A parent may have no choice but to leave a job to be with their homebound child, causing financial hardship. Even the family car can become a source of stress, since it’s often needed to get to medical appointments. And if something happens and it needs repair, the child’s treatment schedule is at risk of being interrupted.

Siblings and other young relatives may not put into words their worries. In Leah’s case her brother, an empathic little guy, often cried if he saw his sister in pain. Whatever feelings her cousins might have been dealing with, they outwardly showed loving support.

The federal funding cuts by the Trump administration to universities mean research projects are disrupted. And we lose scientists. These losses may take decades to gain back, if ever.

Guns are the number one cause of our children in America dying, but the number one disease that takes their lives is cancer. Anyone with a speck of empathy and decency would be disturbed by those facts. I’d like to think no one needs to see a loved one struggle through cancer to be sickened over cuts to cancer research.

After two-and-a-half years of treatment and four surgeries, Leah, now 12, is cancer-free. She enjoys an active life: drama club, school government, playing viola and tennis, and preparing for her Bat Mitzvah in December.

For our country to be dismissive about the care of our most vulnerable is un-American, at least the America I’ve known before now. It’s also inhumane. We do not have the health and well-being of our children as a priority. Diminishing cancer research is yet another example of glaring cruelty and warped values.

If only we had political leadership as strong in character, smart and caring as Leah and so many of our country’s children.

Laurel resident Mary Ellen Tomaszewski has self-published two books of memoir essays, the most recent titled ‘Savoring Time.’

The post Guest Spot: Childhood Cancer: A month of awareness is not enough appeared first on Riverhead News Review.

You’re a young professional and you’re looking for a job. Who do you think will be across the table when you sit down for a job interview?

Matt Berentsen of Shirley, 27, was hoping for someone with whom he could discuss his ambitions, his experience, his questions about the job.

But for his interview, there was no one at all. There was only a blinking webcam and questions on a screen as an algorithm asked him to record every answer, the sound of his own voice echoing back at him.

Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming the application process. While some businesses have retained a more traditional approach to hiring, many are beginning to adopt AI as a tool for making hiring decisions and vetting potential candidates.

This often means using AI to sort and rank applications in the initial hiring phase, determining who will get an automatic rejection and who is qualified to proceed to the next step of the process.

In some cases, such as with Mr. Berentsen, it means AI is being employed as a complete replacement for human interviewers, asking questions over a video screen while evaluating the responses by algorithmic criteria. A recent survey by the employment agency, Insight Global, found that 99% of hiring managers admitted to using AI during the hiring process, and the vast majority maintained that it improved hiring efficiency.

“You never get the chance to hit it off with somebody,” Mr. Berentsen said. “The qualifications can be great, but you also need to hire people who fit in, who mesh, who seem like they can hold a solid conversation.”

Stephanie Bak, 23, an event planner and recent MBA graduate from Stony Brook University, also said she worried AI would miss qualified candidates. “Hiring managers have already been using systems that sort resumes based on key words, so it does not surprise me that they are beginning to add AI to the process,” Ms. Bak said. “But I think management should be aware that by eliminating candidates without personally reading their resumes, they may be missing out on candidates with great potential.”

According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2022, 66% of Americans would not want to apply for a job at a company that used AI for hiring decisions. Respondents questioned AI’s ability to judge “intangible” qualities such as personality, how one might fit into the social dynamics at work and judgments that require some human interaction.

“I am fine with AI judging if I meet the key criteria,” said Ronak Singh, 22, a recent Stony Brook graduate with a degree in applied mathematics, statistics and economics. “But in my opinion, every sentence [in an application] has emotional nuances that only a human is able to identify.”

Mr. Singh has another beef with AI hiring: “The storage of these resumes as sources of data by the AI system of those companies seems unethical to me.”

I’m a recent college graduate, and when I look at potential writing careers, I wonder if they will be viable in 10 years. Companies that used to look for writers are instead asking for people who will train AI to write for them.

It’s disorienting to adjust to the different demands of businesses in this current era: Some want candidates who can use AI for faster and more efficient writing, while others ban the use of AI entirely.

It feels like artificial intelligence is everywhere. Even on the job applications themselves, some employers ask if you want to opt in or out of being reviewed by a robot.

What’s a young graduate to do? Edward Fabian, an adjunct professor of tech innovations at Stony Brook University’s College of Business, has a thought: Try something oldfashioned.

“My suggestion is that more time should be spent networking,” he said. “My way around AI hiring is to form relationships and get to know people.”

Anna Pozamantir is a graduate of Riverhead High School and the University of Virginia.

The post Guest Spot: Anna Pozamantir appeared first on Riverhead News Review.

Last Tuesday in Riverhead, federal agents reportedly attempted to conduct an enforcement action without notifying the Riverhead Police Department — a departure from long-standing practice. This failure to coordinate not only puts local officers in unnecessary danger, it creates confusion and fear in the broader community, which is already on edge. The use of face masks and tactical gear, and the refusal to provide identification and proof of a judicial warrant — as RiverheadLocal reported was the case in this operation, and is reportedly the case around the county — is another dangerous development.

Although by the end of the day it was confirmed that the individuals were not in fact ICE, that it took Riverhead officials hours to confirm their identity speaks volumes to the dangers of such uncoordinated actions. One can imagine possible scenarios where criminals present themselves as federal agents to kidnap or rob unsuspecting civilians, or cases where local officers respond to a scene where civilians are in a confrontation with masked men in tactical gear and assault weapons without visible official identification. As police commissioners, we regularly discuss the importance of coordinating the activities of the various agencies who respond to crisis situations. On a daily basis, our law enforcement officers are forced to make split-second decisions that have lifelong consequences. We must all do our part to make their job easier and safer.

On Monday, June 9, the Southold Town Police Department reached out to local ICE representatives to request guidance on operations and tactics. As of Friday afternoon, we have yet to receive a response. That kind of silence in the face of direct outreach from local law enforcement is reckless and unacceptable.

I want to be crystal clear: We all fully support the removal of violent criminals from our community. But doing so must never come at the expense of due process, public trust and the rule of law. We must also never accept political violence.

These recent federal operations inflame already volatile situations, erode trust in government, and leave local agencies and governments scrambling to restore order and confidence. They are also not fair to the ICE agents and U.S. military personnel who are good people just trying to do their jobs and are being put in an increasingly dangerous position by a president who seems hell-bent on escalating an already dangerous situation.

Public safety depends on trust. It depends on the belief that law enforcement will uphold the rights of all individuals, follow proper procedures and act with transparency and accountability. These recent actions do the opposite.

I implore our federal partners to return to responsible, collaborative practices that respect both the role of local law enforcement and the civil rights of every person in our community, and I ask my local government colleagues to join me in doing so. As the $60 million civil judgment against Suffolk County for allegedly violating the civil rights of hundreds of immigrants who they held in county jails on ICE detainers during the first Trump administration shows, we can’t simply follow questionable federal legal guidance. We must all do our part to uphold the rule of law, protect the civil rights of all individuals, no matter their immigration status, and reject political violence. It is my firm belief that just as the co-equal branches of government are vital to the strength and longevity of our democracy, so is the active role of local governments in defending the rights of our community and the freedom of our friends and neighbors.

Mr. Doroski, a current member of the Southold Town Board, is running as a Democrat for a seat in the Suffolk County Legislature.

The post Guest Spot: Enforcement requires transparency appeared first on Riverhead News Review.

For most Greenport Village residents, their home or business is their biggest investment — protecting that value matters. One way to do that is through inclusion in Greenport’s local historic district, which provides added protections under the village’s municipal code. While it does mean submitting an extra application for renovations or new construction, the long-term benefits significantly outweigh the inconvenience.

The Historic Preservation Commission is the only step in the residential permitting process that considers whether a project fits the character of the neighborhood. Outside the district, homes can be demolished without a permit and built in any fashion.

Now, the HPC is proposing to extend the local historic district — in place for 37 years — to cover the entire village. Currently, about a quarter of Greenport’s structures are within the local district. Earlier this year, at the request of the residents seeking the protections of a local historic district, the village created a new local district with the 27 properties of Sandy Beach, increasing the total of already protected properties to 291. Roughly 809 parcels are outside the district.

In most cases, HPC review adds 30 days to the permitting timeline. The commission meets monthly and decisions are made at that meeting. The HPC reviews only what’s in the application — it can’t require unrelatedchanges to existing structures, nor does it mandate national historic standards. It does not generally add expense to renovation or new construction as the preferred materials are largely typical. The review focuses solely on exterior changes. Importantly, the proposed changes are considered as to whether they harmonize with the surrounding neighborhood in scale, materials and design. And because Greenport is proudly eclectic, a significant amount of flexibility in style is built in.

Why did this idea start now? It’s interesting to note that it is an idea floated in 2011 by then-mayor George Hubbard and then-HPC chair Dave Murray. Today, the HPC is motivated to add protection to existing Greenport structures as growth in Greenport’s popularity has led to significant growth in land values. It can be faster and cheaper to demolish an original home and build something quickly, often for immediate resale. While demolition is an option in historic districts, an application is required first, as well as an understanding of what is to be put in its place.

Why include the whole village? Greenport is densely built, and neighboring properties are always within sight — a historic home next to an out-of-place new build affects everyone. The goal is to preserve the village’s unique charm, protect property values, and give homeowners and business owners confidence in their investments.

This is a local effort with no state or national involvement at this time. The pace of its adoption, quickly or slowly, is up to the community. The initiative launched March 20 at the HPC’s regular meeting and can be viewed on the village website as well as by obtaining the municipal code, Chapter 76.

Want to learn more? Join us for a Q& A at the Greenport library on Saturday, May 10, at 3 p.m. The HPC will also be at Village Board meetings and available to speak with any group, from the BID to the civic association. Let’s clear up any misconceptions and make sure everyone has the facts. Ultimately, the Village Board will make the final decision.

Members of the Greenport Historic Preservation Commission are Janice Claudio (chair), Dennis McMahon, Roselle Borrelli and Frances Walton.

The post Guest Spot: Greenport Historic Preservation Commission appeared first on Riverhead News Review.

Once again, the breach of classified information by politicians is in the news. As a former naval officer responsible for the control of classified documents and information, I am dismayed at the cavalier attitude of politicians of both parties in their handing of sensitive, classified materials.

It’s important for Americans to understand exactly what is classified, why it’s classified, and how classified information must be handled.

At its core, classified information is information that, if obtained by enemies of the United States, would place our military and intelligence personnel at risk, compromise our national security, and ultimately place us all in danger. Classified information is divided into four categories based its sensitivity: Unclassified, Confidential, Secret and Top Secret. The designation of Top Secret is reserved for the most sensitive information, the release of which would create a grave and imminent danger to our personnel and national security. Additional qualifiers can be added, such as NOFO (No Foreign Distribution) or SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information).

When not in use, all classified documents must be stored in a combination lock safe, in a secure location guarded 24/7 by military or security personnel. Typically, this means a U.S. warship, military base or secure government location, such as Congress or the Oval Office. Additionally, an individual with the proper security clearance must be assigned as the custodian of the documents at each location and, when removed for use, a chain of custody is required. When a government official leaves office, any classified material must be signed over to the incoming official, destroyed according to current protocols, or returned to the originating agency.

Access to classified information by individuals requires the proper security clearance, but there exists another, over-arching requirement: There must be a “need to know” the information. For example, a Top Secret clearance allows access to that level material only if the information is relevant to the mission of the unit involved.

Past infractions of security reflect a lack of concern for the handling of classified documents by politicians of both parties. For example, President Biden had classified documents in a locked cabinet (not a safe) in his garage. Not secure! Vice President Pence had classified documents in a locked cabinet in his study. Again, not secure! And President Trump, after losing the 2020 election, had a voluminous amount of classified material in a closet at Mar-a-Lago. Most definitely not secure! Did these officials have a “need to know”? President Biden could claim he had a need for these documents. But Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence, as private citizens, had no legal standing and no “need to know.”

That brings us to the most recent lapse of security, the current scandal involving the discussion of a current military operation against the Houthi terrorist faction in Yemen on the commercial chat platform, Signal. Notably, the chat inadvertently included journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine. The lack of awareness and/or concern for the proper handling of classified information regarding a current military operation boggles the mind and reflects a complete lack of competence by everyone involved. The fact that those involved are among the highest positions of government is truly frightening. Let’s examine the situation more critically.

First, should the information be classified? Despite loud disclaimers from those involved, information about a current military operation requires the highest possible classification — Top Secret. This is a no-brainer. When sending F-18 fighter pilots on a combat mission into hostile territory, it’s absolutely essential that the timing and details receive the highest possible classification for the protection of our military personnel. For the participants to argue that this information is unclassified is absurd and represents the personification of incompetence. Our troops deserve better. 

Second, should a discussion of ongoing military operations be discussed on a commercial platform? Absolutely not! Military and government officials cannot guarantee the secrecy and security of the discussion, nor can they be certain other parties with hostile intentions were not hacking the discussion.

Third, should military planning be discussed via cellphone communication? Again, absolutely not! Commercial cellphone communication is not considered secure. Only devices issued by the government, operating via an appropriate encrypted government platform, should be considered secure. A discussion of an ongoing military operation should occur only in a war room setting with the relevant personnel in attendance.

Fourth, should someone have been responsible to ensure that the participants in the discussion are appropriate, possess the proper clearance and have that essential “need to know”? Of course! The fact that a journalist was included in this discussion reflects an appalling level of incompetence and should be grounds for immediate dismissal of those responsible.

Fifth, should the participants be aware that our military personnel are actually risking their lives, and should their comments and demeanor reflect the gravity of the situation? Of course! This is not the forum for emojis or cheerleading. Remember the appropriate seriousness of the war room in the Obama administration when Navy Seals were conducting the operation to capture Osama bin Laden. That level of seriousness is required of administration officials each time young men and women are sent into combat.

The breach of security in this incident is so egregious, had it been done by military officers, those involved would be charged with dereliction of duty, court-martial and likely face a prison sentence. Our military personnel, facing enemy fire, deserve better than this.

Finally, should Mr. Goldberg and The Atlantic have released the transcript of the meeting. Absolutely not! The safety of our military personnel must always remain the paramount consideration. Given the fact that the government officials involved were lying and attempting to justify their incompetence, an argument can be made that the public has a right to know. But the fact remains that even the details of past military operations are valuable sources of intelligence for enemies of the United States. This is not information we should ever intentionally make available to our enemies.

Jack Gibbons is a decorated U.S. Navy veteran who served in Vietnam as an executive officer at a forward base of operations outside Da Nang. He taught social studies at Mattituck High School for 34 years.

The post Guest Spot: Jack Gibbons appeared first on Riverhead News Review.

It’s 2012. You wake up and check your phone for the weather — Hurricane Sandy is coming to Riverhead. The bay floods, trees and power lines are knocked down and your basement is underwater. How did we know Hurricane Sandy was coming? Who prepared our disaster response? Federal employees. Meteorologists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and responders at FEMA warned us, helped us prepare and rebuild. I remember playing with the neighborhood kids in our fallen weeping willow tree, but I also remember the $15 billion in federal aid that helped Long Island recover.

This isn’t to say the federal bureaucracy is perfect. There’s room for reshaping and auditing, but indiscriminately firing employees across agencies — and then scrambling to rehire them when we realize they’re essential — isn’t the answer. When the Department of Defense pays $150,000 for a soap dispenser or Boeing charges an extra 8,000% for spare plane parts, someone should absolutely step in. But by and large, federal employees aren’t wasting your taxpayer dollars. They’re providing critical services that keep our communities running.

As an intern at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) — essentially the HR department for the federal government — I saw firsthand how understaffed teams worked tirelessly to support federal employees and improve government efficiency. I worked on projects like the Federal Intern Program to help college students and young professionals get jobs. It was rewarding, but it was also eye-opening. In any other organization, my supervisor would have had a team of experienced employees. Instead, he had two interns learning on the job.

Later, in the Office of Communications at OPM, I helped create a website to provide resources for job seekers, federal employees and veterans. Some might call this wasteful, but isn’t it more wasteful to keep funding outdated systems that fail to serve the public? In the 21st century, a technologically advanced government isn’t a luxury — it’s a necessity.

I recognize there are places where spending can be reined in. But consider the human cost of cutting these jobs. Consider me. I was your neighbor. I went to your high school. I volunteered at Maureen’s Haven. My mother is a volunteer firefighter and my father served on the Riverhead Free Library board. I grew up believing that giving back to my community was the highest honor, and I chose a career in public service because of that belief. Now, I’m told that my pursuit of public service was selfish — that I was just trying to take taxpayer funds. Like my 20 colleagues in the Office of Communications, I’ve lost my job because those in power don’t see the value in serving our communities.

They don’t want my pop to have easy access to VA health care. They don’t want FEMA and the National Guard to respond to natural disasters. They don’t want your community to come together to help each other.

I ask you now to consider what’s at stake when we say public service is a waste of money. I gladly pay taxes so my friends hit by Hurricane Harvey can get emergency relief, veterans like my pop can have health care and our youth can go to school, read books and learn to advance our nation. These are the services those in power are cutting.

Federal funding impacts our daily lives. It’s the water you drink and the air you breathe. It’s the beaches we lie on in the summer and the jetties holding them together. You all know someone in government service. A teacher. A firefighter. Someone who works at a nonprofit. Our economy is built on providing services to the public, grounded in the principles of community. Those in power tell you public service is wasteful and tax cuts to the rich make rents lower, that trickle down economics will finally trickle down to us. Well it’s been over 40 years of trickle down and we’ve only seen the reverse happen. Meanwhile, billionaires like Elon Musk give themselves millions in bonuses while labeling essential programs like Social Security and Medicare as “Ponzi schemes.” If he paid his fair share in taxes, we could fund these programs for decades. Instead, he’s firing 83,000 VA employees who provide actual services to veterans while protecting his own contracts.

This isn’t a Democratic or Republican issue. It’s about the elite in this country versus the rest of us. It’s about the rich and powerful prioritizing their profits over the people just trying to afford eggs.

When the next hurricane hits Long Island and there’s no FEMA money to aid us, what will we do? When the VA closes clinics because they don’t have enough employees, what will we do? When the Department of State closes consulates and embassies, leaving travelers stranded without help, what will we do? When the Department of Education closes and property taxes skyrocket to fund our schools, what will we do?

Federal employees go to work every day because they believe in serving their communities. I got up every morning because I believed — and still believe — that giving back to Riverhead is the greatest thing I can do. Don’t let billionaires tell you that people helping your community are the reason your taxes are high or eggs are expensive. They’re the reason your community thrives.

Call Rep. Nick LaLota and tell him to protect federal jobs and hold wasteful contractors accountable. Call Sen. Chuck Schumer and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and demand they prioritize funding for essential services like FEMA, the VA and public education. This is our community — and it’s worth fighting for.

Dominic Bossey is a resident of Aquebogue and a 2019 graduate of Riverhead High School. 

The post Guest Spot: Federal workers are not your enemies appeared first on Riverhead News Review.

I write this with a heavy heart, deeply disturbed and outraged by the racial slurs directed at The Butterfly Effect Project — an initiative I have poured my heart into, ensuring that not just Black girls, but all girls, are uplifted, empowered and given safe spaces to grow. The use of such hateful language is not just an attack on me, these young women or the organization; it is an attack on human dignity. 

Let me be clear: Empowerment is not a buzzword to me. It is a reflection of how I carry myself and how I approach working with children — ensuring that each one of them is seen, heard and valued. To be denied the right to simply be — because of the color of one’s skin or because of the choice to use inclusive language — is unacceptable. No one should have to fight for their existence. No one should have to prove their worth. We all have the right to occupy space, to grow and to thrive — regardless of race, culture, economic status or ability. 

Pearls of Wisdom was established to uplift, inspire and empower. It was not created to be mocked, bullied or reduced to hateful slurs and animalistic comparisons. Can you imagine stepping into a space, fighting an unseen enemy? Arguing with a person who hides in the shadows, faceless and nameless? Seeking help but questioning if you can trust the very hands reaching out to you? This experience has left me shaken, paralyzed — paranoid, even by the realization that this kind of hatred could be coming from anyone. It is a chilling thought.

And yet, in the midst of this darkness, there is light. So many incredible people reached out, offering their support, their encouragement, their strength. To each and every one of you, I say thank you. Your messages were seen. Your kindness was felt. Your words are being read and responded to. The outpouring of love reminded me that this fight is worth it. That this battle, exhausting as it is, must continue. Because if we don’t stand up now, then when? 

But let me also say this: I had to stop talking. Not because I was afraid, but because when I did speak, I was not heard. When invited to share what happened and BEP’s response to the incidents, I was not met with empathy and solidarity, I was met with condescension. Talked at, instead of talked with. I was told I had to be educated about incidents like these. I was told what I should and should not have done. Instead of listening to what actually happened, and asking how we can work together collectively to prevent this from happening again, I was patronized. 

I understand that this is an uncomfortable conversation to have. But if simply talking about it makes you uncomfortable, can you imagine living it? Can you imagine having your very existence questioned, your presence mocked, your worth diminished? These things are not just going to disappear. Racism does not dissolve on its own. It will not go away if we ignore it. 

We have to do the work. Pointing fingers and going silent will not do. Accepting this as our new normal will not do. Standing on the sidelines while others are dehumanized will not do. 

I never condemn anyone for taking pride in their identity. Pride is not exclusionary; it is the celebration of who we are. And yet, in 2025, we still live in a world where five young Black women — five brilliant, capable, extraordinary young ladies — are reduced to slurs, compared to animals and treated with hatred rather than respect. That reality is terrifying. It is not just about these five young women; it is about a society that rallies around hate, rather than finding unity in love. 

For those who have questioned my response, who have said I “chickened out” or that my ancestors would be ashamed, let me make one thing clear: I acted in the best interest of everyone involved. How could I, in good conscience, proceed with an event knowing these women were being dehumanized? Knowing that there were threats — sugar in gas tanks, slashed tires, potential confrontations with protesters? Who would want to stand in a space filled with fear? That is not empowerment. Protecting these women, children and the community, and ensuring their safety was the priority. Please trust that my staff and I know what is best for the youth and families we serve. 

We do not fight hate by mirroring it. We fight hate by standing firm in who we are, by creating space for others to exist in safety and dignity. I refuse to let anyone distort my intentions. If you don’t know who I am, let me tell you: I am a human being first. A wife and mother second. I never asked to be a leader, nor do I claim to be one. I am simply someone doing the best I can in the face of adversity — just like everyone else. 

So I ask those who shared, liked or commented on the negativity — what are you doing? Not just for yourself, but for others? If all you contribute is criticism, ask yourself what it would mean to channel that energy into something productive. Because this is bigger than me. It is bigger than The Butterfly Effect Project. It is about the Riverhead community, the East End community, the Suffolk County community and beyond. It is about every child who deserves to grow up in a world where they are not targeted, bullied or reduced to anything less than human. 

If you think I’m upset, you are absolutely right. I am devastated. I am hurt. But above all, I am still filled with love. Because I know that what I pour into these young people cannot be hate — it must be love. And so, I challenge you. I challenge you to do one small thing every day to better the world for someone other than yourself. That is how change happens. That is how we fight hate. Not with more hate, but with small acts of kindness that ripple into something greater. 

The Butterfly Effect Project will continue. The work will not stop. But the question remains: Will you stand with us against hate? Or will you stand on the sidelines watching? The choice is yours.

Tijuana Fulford is the founder and president of Jamesport nonprofit The Butterfly Effect Project.

The post Guest Spot: Tijuana Fulford appeared first on Riverhead News Review.

The extraordinary dedication of Long Island’s first responders was on full display during the recent brushfires that tore through parts of Brookhaven and Southampton towns. Their swift and selfless response not only protected lives and property but earned national attention — and deservedly so. Even leaders at the highest levels of government have recognized their bravery.

This past Sunday, I was in Westhampton Beach meeting with first responders and state, county and town officials. I saw firsthand the relentless work of more than 90 fire departments from across Long Island — men and women who fought through the night and into the next day to contain the blaze. Once again, these heroes put their lives on the line for our communities, and we owe them our deepest gratitude and unwavering support.

But gratitude alone is not enough. Their heroic response demands equally strong action from all levels of government. While initial estimates suggest that total uninsured public damage may fall short of the $37.5 million threshold needed for federal disaster aid, that shouldn’t stop Washington from acting. We need to strengthen prevention policies now to stop future fires before they start.

In Congress, I recently helped pass the bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act, which includes my provision to combat Long Island’s devastating Southern Pine Beetle infestation — a key driver of the dead, dry vegetation that makes these fires worse. My provision requires targeted federal action to reduce these fire risks, but this can’t be the end of the fight. The Senate should pass this important legislation without further delay.

Albany can’t sit idly by, either. I’m calling on Gov. Kathy Hochul to provide more resources for controlled burns and back policies — like those in the Fix Our Forests Act — to speed up the removal of dangerous wildfire fuel. The time for mere talking is over. Suffolk County’s communities, forests and drinking water need action now.

These fires are a wake-up call. The Pine Barrens Preserve, which sits atop a federally recognized drinking water source, has been ravaged by the Southern Pine Beetle for years. Gov. Hochul has acknowledged this growing threat — now she must follow through. With large sections of untouched but parched forest still at risk, we can’t afford to wait for another fire to strike.

I’ll continue working in Congress to deliver resources and solutions, but this must be a team effort — free of politics — to protect Long Island’s environment and safety. Our first responders deserve nothing less.

Congressman Nick LaLota (R-Suffolk County) is a lifelong Long Islander in his second term in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The post Guest Spot: Nick LaLota appeared first on Riverhead News Review.