Jump to content

MsKreed

Uber-Member
  • Content Count

    1,950
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    180

Posts posted by MsKreed


  1. 16 minutes ago, Chris said:

    Just denied it again live on Facebook. 

    Wow. I can't find it.........I wasn't aware he had an active Legislator FB page.  Like many of them, I only see the "campaign" page get busy during election years.

    Even if he’s using slick, manipulative language like no taxes are being used for directly “operating the Arena”....then it’s twisting facts to give a false perception.

    The ongoing Room Tax contributions have never been explained in anything more than vague “everyone benefits because the Arena brings visitors to the area”.  No specific, measurable metric to ever show a payoff for the “investment”. Ten years down, 15 to go. 

    And the ARP funds were earmarked for specific equipment, repairs and replacements, etc.  All of which they argued were/are necessary for the Arena to operate. Period.


  2. 11 minutes ago, Chris said:

    I wasn't staying up past 9, let alone late enough to see the aurora ( if even possible with the increased light pollution ). Did anyone see anything?

    Nope.

    It was too late in the night and would have needed a short road trip to get a clear view....Besides the fact that you can't get far enough "out of town" to escape the brilliant light a Full Moon. 


  3. Quote

    Margeson has repeatedly said the Arena is not financed by tax dollars. Freedom of Information Act requests show the First Arena has received at least $875,909 from the Covid-19 American Rescue Plan. Those are federal tax dollars. 

     

    In addition to the $875 in ARP funds.....every year, the Legislature passes a resolution to pay $103,000/yr of Room Tax Revenue to the IDA for the Arena.

    This is a continuation of a 2014 resolution that promised the CCIDA more than $2.5 million in tax dollars specifically for the Arena over a 25 year period (2014 – 2039). 

    $100k a year isn't a bad steady income for a shady 'quasi-government' agency that flagrantly violates Open Meeting Law to hide its operations from public view, and then boldly lies to the public when it is on record.

    He's arrogantly denying the Arena is receiving nearly $3.5 million in tax money ($875k ARP + $2,575,000 Room Tax).

    This doesn't include past legislative actions that were a few million from 1999 through 2017......just current tax money trough that the CCIDA is feeding at.

     

    "Who us?? We din't git no tax money." 

    image.png.8806dca9666435283e52ed0547db7f2b.png

    • Like 3

  4. 3 hours ago, Chris said:

    But seriously, adjacent to the AOMC campus? Why there, other than a donated location? Good God, there’s already no parking to be found in that area as it is.

    If I had to take a guess, I’d think donated could be a factor. Also, the idea of a property that’s already “built to suit” as a medical facility. A little clean up and fresh paint on existing waiting rooms, reception areas, exam rooms, etc and the place is ready to start accepting patients on Day One..... without any real renovations needed.

    I admit the “campus-style” layout is practical for large medical facilities, especially if they are regional specialists/experts, etc.  Whether it’s Mayo or Cleveland Clinic....or Strong, specialists will schedule multiple tests and visits on the same day for anyone coming from out of area. Having services and specialties all located in tight proximity makes sense for that.

    But can’t stand that concept for local care. Fighting to park adds unnecessary stress to medical visits that are already a source of anxiety for many people.  I do not need my doctor to be located right next door to every single test or lab that they might ever need at any point in my lifetime.  

    • Like 1

  5. 1 hour ago, Chris said:

    Or did the usual bullshit power struggle in county government screw that all up and now someone else ( the city ) is starting over?

    This would be my guess. Or, quite likely....the FQHC developers got sick of waiting for Moss to do his job and approached the City. And maybe suggested that Elmira apply for one of the DRI that the State Legislature green-lighted?

    The developer had a presentation at a County Legislature meeting about the deal they approved ARP funds for.  At the time, they (County Leg) asked the City pitch in with them, and it was declined.  That plan was proposed adjacent to AOMC - not the Southside. 

     

    Those guys already had a facility in either Chautauqua Cattaraugus County and were putting up a few million of their own. And after the County Legislature approved the ARP money, they started work on their side. Including working with Dr. Surosky to have a building donated for the project. 


  6. 38 minutes ago, Chris said:

    I’ll have to look into him some more but so far I’m not impressed. But then again he’d likely be better than the other two brain dead.

    It seems like he certainly has some “controversial” views on some things....but nonconformist doesn’t mean he’s not intelligent. I kind of think he understands strategy and the importance of dialogue and being thoughtful of differing opinions/priorities, etc.

     

    I know he’s characterized as “anti-vaccine”....and also as extremely “green”. I have no reason to doubt the holds those views. But there can a huge difference between having personal views and wanting to  impose those views on others.

    One can truly believe and be concerned that anything (from high carb diets, to fossil fuels, to gun ownership, to school curricula) may be an "existential danger".....and still believe citizens should be free to make their own choices. 

     

    Not having researched his direct platform, I’m really not clear on how “rigid” RFK's particular policy ideas are. But I haven’t seen anything that says he supports prohibiting things he dislikes or mandating things he supports.


  7. 10 hours ago, KarenK said:

    So speaking of 3rd party, I know Kennedy is an extreme underdog here but he seems to be garnering more and more support very quietly.  Maybe that's the idea.

    Regardless of what anyone may think about some of his specific views.....nobody should doubt RFK Jr's intelligence. He has about twice the cognitive understanding (especially about about numbers, probability and strategy) of the other two combined.  

    If he didn't have so many partisan hurdles restricting his "reach" to the public, his would be a lot less of an underdog.

     


  8. I think you’re right.

    Sane voters across all parties and persuasions are unhappy with the presumptive 2-man race. But, being of sane mind, they don’t have much desire to get into heated arguments by saying that out loud.  

    Both campaigns are built on emphasizing what’s bad about the opponent. While neither is doing much to demonstrate why their candidate is a good choice.

     

    I feel like this election could be more like the unexpected 2016 result. Whether their reasons were “anti-Hillary” or “pro-Trump”..... it seemed like a large number of voters didn’t advertise their feelings, and just cast their vote quietly in November (throwing polls out the window).

    In contrast to the 2020 attitude of both sides screaming their choice, we could very well see quiet voters having a huge impact again.


  9. 1 hour ago, Chris said:

    More on topic, as I the only one who thinks his rhetoric, in whatever context, is not only unbecoming of the office he held but also potentially dangerous?

    And before anyone responds with, “What about…” yeah I get it, the left talks as if a Trump win is the prophecy of Armageddon fulfilled. We can talk about that as well. But “what about” isn’t an answer in my way of seeing things, and too often uttered.

    I’ll refrain from “what about” examples, and just say that other politicians say (and do) things that are also offensive, with much less scrutiny and amplification (whether social media, pundits or “news” coverage).

     

    For now, I’ll try to focus on your specific questions about Trump’s conduct***.(see footnote)

    I'll qualify my remarks by saying, I did not vote for him (and will not vote for him in the future).

    Yes....his rhetoric is often abrasive, antagonistic, crude and hyperbolically exaggerated.

    In my opinion, his campaign(s) and presidency have displayed the same persona that he demonstrated on The Apprentice......evidently making it very successful – with dozens of awards and nominations. (Although I proudly count myself among those who never watched a single episode and found the commercials/clips distasteful).

    But clearly, the millions and millions of Apprentice fans would suggest that his rhetoric style is effective, and many people found it appealing.

    While his distasteful persona is unbecoming of POTUS, I’ve seen little to no evidence of the “dangerous talk” (or perceptions of) equating to any genuinely dangerous Executive actions that have been fear-mongered. (no EO’s to lock up or censor reporters, or jail Muslims, or strip LGBTQ’s of any rights, etc).

     

    And, I do include Jan 6th in my consideration. There's been plenty of domestic unrest, with intent to forcibly influence Constitutional government activity, throughout US history. Often in larger numbers and with comparable (or even higher) degrees of violence....Anyone who wants a taste of what “insurrection” actually looks like can scoot on down to Haiti. 

     

    Weighing his rhetoric against his actions as POTUS, I believe his domestic and foreign policy decisions had far more positive impact on national security and economic prosperity than his successor.

    Barring some miracle of a third party being able to defend against the powerful D/R machine that restricts voter choice.....I have to say that, in the presumptive 2-man 2024 race, I will be more optimistic about the future if the former POTUS with potentially dangerous rhetoric prevails over the former POTUS with a demonstrably dangerous policy record.

     

    ***(perhaps we can also have an equally critical discussion on Biden’s potentially dangerous conduct at a later time – also refraining from “what about” comparisons).  

    • Like 1

  10. 34 minutes ago, Chris said:

    It's a snotty little f--ker, that's "learning" how to get responses. 😉

    Unfortunately, getting responses can be a dubious objective.

    The li’l f—ker is likely to “learn” that a click-bait model with provocative rhetoric will absofarking-lutely satisfy a metric based on “responses”.

     

    Whether the bulk of those resulting “responses” are going to be thoughtful or contentious....welllll. 🤷‍♀️

    Bill proved that years ago without any AI help. 😉


  11. 41 minutes ago, Chris said:

    Perhaps not. But I don't have nearly as much faith in most people to discern what he meant from what they heard. 

    I think we may differ on the "who/how/why" of incorrectly discerning what he meant.  I have less faith in those who willfully circulate "sound byte" headlines and selective excerpts that leave out the context.  Click-bait is designed to hide mundane 'full context' behind inflammatory and misleading snippets.

    It gives me pause to see incomplete snippets instead of the full context. (And that kind of includes TTL Bot's truncated AP quoted here, about 7-8 posts back). 

     

    When a news outlet (whether AP, MSN, etc or one of their commentators) presents clear disingenuousness in a (highly edited, selectively curated) message, it tends to call the messenger’s integrity into question. Rather than offering a compelling argument of the alleged “danger” Trump presents.....misleading narratives and “quotes” illustrate bias.  

    • Like 1

  12. 12 hours ago, Chris said:

    I understand full well the context of what he was saying. The problem is there’s a lot of people out there, who hang on his every word, that don’t understand context.

    He didn't call for any (corporeal) bloodbath, he's simply predicting an (economic) bloodbath if the current administration continues its path. And he's not necessarily wrong about that.

    But it's not his supporters who are spreading the inflammatory out-of-context phrase....the problem is those who are against him that are hoping to foment fear and counting on the idea that voters who "don’t understand context" will believe he is calling for a "bloodbath" if he doesn't win.

    • Like 4

  13. On 3/12/2024 at 4:46 PM, Chris said:

    I can’t help but wonder how many of these people who make it to all these protests own more than a half acre to acre of land, if they own any at all?

    Because it’s really easy to be against something when you don’t stand to benefit from it in any way.

    Don't ever count out the stupidity of some people to support (and sometimes even facilitate) actions that are against their own interest.

    When Seneca Lake was in the middle of the LP Storage debate.....there were plenty who proudly planted yard signs right in front of the LP tanks that heated their homes.

    We confused, amused and saddened for humanity, all at once.

    • Haha 1

  14. 11 hours ago, Adam said:

    If the Arena is seeing "success" then there should be no problems being open about moneys spent thus far and spending no more money on the place

    This. 

    I realize that Moss has no room to criticize anyone else's motives or lack of transparency.......but two wrongs do not make a right. His bad behavior doesn't give the CCIDA license to act shady.

    And they have been (and continue to be) acting shady. 

    After Nichol's was evicted, they (rightly) took no blame for his stint as a tenant and made it clear that his deal was signed by "old" IDA leadership.

    Well, that dog don't hunt no more.  The terminated Donner (and Tadross**) deal was all them. The deal was all done in secret (violating OML law)....and the deal was a complete failure.

     

    And decisions they make now are still happening in secret. And, on top of the ongoing (bond and room tax) taxpayer funding that the previous IDA leadership was getting while CAN-USA was renting....the “new” leadership has been getting additional taxpayer funding.

    If they feel their superior leadership is worthy of our “investment” (new money, as well as old/ongoing funding), then they should be inviting the investors to fully witness their meetings and showing them the books.

    If they are proud of their decisions. If they are satisfied with the progress. If they are doing great works and not misusing Taxpayer funds.  Then I’d expect them to want to make sure we know that and be more transparent than the law requires, instead of hiding every discussion.

    • Like 1

  15. The Union president seems to have some very fair points, regarding management's lack of a consistency:

    Quote

     

    Andrew Ansbro, president of the Uniformed Firefighters Association that represents roughly 8,500 active firefighters, said the taunts were “unfortunate” given James has been a strong supporter of firefighters over the years.

    But he argued that promotion ceremonies tend to have a “carnival atmosphere,” with people sounding air horns and sometimes wearing costumes.

    FDNY Commissioner Laura Kavanaugh was even booed at one last year, and there was “no hunt, no calls for re-education” from the department, Ansbro said.

    “We are concerned that all of our members are going to be disciplined over this,” he said, noting that top officials present Thursday never intervened during the heckling.

    “The department really needs to sit down and decide what the guidelines are going to be and bring the unions into that so that we can make sure our workers rights are protected,” Ansbro said.

     

    If heckling has been previously been acceptable, then why is it a problem here?  Did last year's example take place at a non-church venue? If so, then they need clarification as to "where" it's acceptable - not disciplinary action. 

    If the difference is simply that Latitia holds some superior/protected status above that of the Commissioner....then that is what's political. 

    • Like 1

  16. 53 minutes ago, Chris said:

    Would I consider that kind of behavior to be out of line? Considering it was in a church service, yes, I do actually. Although in fairness, I don’t know what was said to spark the booing, so maybe the AG made it political. In which case, she would have been out of line as well.

    I tend to agree, if they were reacting to something she said that was political, then their response is a fair part of an exchange that she initiated. 

    If they wanted to simply make a 'statement' of disapproval for a politician, then I'd say a silent statement (turning away, taking a knee, etc) would have been more appropriate in a church.  However, I don't think disciplinary action is warranted. I think it would be sufficient to communicate that it's inappropriate and won't be tolerated in the future.

    1 hour ago, Chris said:

    All that said, they do have the right to voice their opinions, and they did. But that the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect them from consequences by their employer is valid point I’d say. 

    I agree, with some stipulations.  Like prior guidance in the form of some written "code of conduct" that clearly outlines when and where what behavior is unacceptable. 

    Remember....the very fact that a public agency employs chaplains, and is holding their promotion ceremony, in a church sort of makes a blurry line for First Amendment questions. 

    • Like 1

  17. 6 hours ago, TTL News Bot said:

    Margeson added that Moss wants to control the route slip process because of what he says is a, “perception that in the past, some of the resolutions may have been modified or changed.”

    The accusation by Moss was made against the now former clerk of the legislature, Cindy Kalweit.

    Kalweit told WSKG that any changes she made in her capacity as clerk were made to reflect appropriate attachments and formatting for policy and resolution language.

    Aside from his "stonewalling" creating an obstruction to Legislative proceedings, an attack like this is indefensible.  If he had any suspicion that any county employee was inappropriately modifying legal communications......there is most certainly a process to address it besides refusing to conduct business with teh Legislature. 

     

    If Moss is on record making such an accusation, Ms. Kalweit should pursue a civil suit for defamation. 

     


  18. I guess I recall one of my more "conspiracy-minded" acquaintances posting something about this back in December. Since the headline I recall seemed overly alarmist (something like "giving Big Pharma more freedom and removing patients' right to informed consent"), assumed it was fake news.  

    I'd forgotten about it.....but lately have been seeing a flood of FB "sponsored ads" suddenly recruiting the general population for drug trials. 

    So, I looked it up and it appears to be a real thing:

    Quote

    The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finalized a rule allowing Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to waive or alter elements of informed consent for certain clinical trials that pose minimal risk to human subjects.
     
    The rule, published on 21 December 2023, finalizes a proposal the agency issued in 2018 and implements provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act that gave FDA the authority to allow an informed consent exception for minimal risk clinical testing that includes human subjects safeguards and directed FDA and the US Department of Health and Human Services to harmonize their human subjects regulations (RELATED: FDA Proposes Changes to Informed Consent Rules, Regulatory Focus 13 November 2018).

    Under FDA’s current regulations, informed consent exceptions are only allowed in certain cases, such as life-threatening situations, when certain emergency research requirements are met, and with a Presidential waiver for specific military operations. In 2017, the agency issued guidance advising informing and research sponsors that it would not object to waiving or altering informed consent requirements for certain minimal risk clinical trials. The FDA plans to withdraw the 2017 guidance once the final rule goes into effect in January 2024.

    SOURCE

     

    Considering the huge advertising push I'm seeing, the new rule must have really expanded research opportunities.....

    Just in the last two days, I've seen these four:

    image.png.4b05dd719e682fd4477fb57f07dc39d6.png


  19. 47 minutes ago, Chris said:

    the food you buy in the store is mass produced and hybridized. It’s already lacking the flavor of locally grown and/or heirloom varieties. Why wouldn’t it also lack nutritional value?

    It's become commonplace, but not a new thing really. The introduction of tomatoes, etc decades ago that were "forced" to grow rapidly in greenhouses were clearly  less "ripe", paler and less flavorful (less color/flavor = less nutrients).

     

    If anything, a solid argument could be made that any vegetation will typically thrive better with increased CO2 . 

    • Like 1

  20. I doubt that there's really a "decision" between the two for NY voters.....it's pretty much a given where our electoral votes will go. (So I will vote a third party, knowing it won't change the 2024 outcome, but will give other parties more strength and viability in NYS)

    This will be decided in the swing states.  


  21.  

    On 1/4/2024 at 4:01 PM, KarenK said:

    If you noticed on the calendar I sent you, I sell use the cents symbol

    I only recently found it on my phone keyboard, by navigating to the "more symbols" icon.  Still don't know how to get it on the "qwerty" keyboard on my laptop. When they rearranged other symbols, they didn't find a new home for it.

    image.png.54d53ca904fea16a189ebfc963fe5ed8.png

     

    21 minutes ago, Chris said:

    For some reason I was thinking of K-Tel records ads this morning. Weird. 

    I get a channel on Sling called Buzzr that runs old game shows. I only catch a few that I liked “back in the day”. A lot are ones I never cared for and don’t tune into.....but I’ve seen ads that, during certain time blocks, they apparently play the original vintage commercials along with the show.

    I bet some of those ads would be more entertaining than the lot of the actual shows.


  22. Thanks for clarifying.

    I knew from seeing convicts in prison that there are felony “vehicular assault” and "vehicular manslaughter” charges that are based on BAC but separate from any DWI that also may apply.

    So for example....

    *Stopped by a roadblock with BAC 0.08 and initially charged with DWI that could be reduced to DWAI. It was a roadblock with no accident, damage, victims,et ....so no other charges. Class E felony DWI is the most serious conviction this arrest could result in. 

    *Hit someone causing injury while drunk and charged with Vehicular Assault. Depending on severity of injuries and BAC (.08 to over 0.18%), it could be First Degree, Second Degree or Aggravated (Vehicular Assault. I believe those are Class E, D and C felonies respectively). And, of course, still also be charged with DWI. 

     

    So in a case where assault and fleeing the scene with injuries are added on, one or more Class D or C felonies would also be charged over and above a DWI/DWAI.  Then it seems like the prosecutor would still have discretion to reduce the DWI, but not required to drop to DWAI, if they choose not to aggressively pursue any potential C/D assaults.

     

    (FYI, if convicted of Class E felony DWI they are usually assigned to minimum security prisons and often eligible for "Shock" incarceration.....any higher Class and/or assault, endangerment, etc and they will almost certainly be seeing a maximum security facility instead of Shock/min security).

    • Like 1

  23. Seems like this was an intentional assault using truck as a potentially lethal weapon. And he fled the scene with injured victims. And as Karen noted, there was a child victim to boot. 

    That feels like he could theoretically be written up for multiple felonies in addition to DWI....and those degrees and "classes" could depend on the seriousness of injuries and his BAC. 

     

    I always thought that 'reduced' charge negotiations generally involved dropping (or lowering to a lesser charge) the most serious charges..... and prosecuting lower charges. If my perceptions on that are correct.....then something like a Class E DWI itself could be a reduced/lowered charge in lieu of a some other charge(s) like aggravated vehicular assault (or the less likely "attempted murder" as some suggest from his pattern).

     


  24. 9 hours ago, Adam said:

    wonder if well see another appearance of his old timey sheriff friend?

    I recall seeing either an ad or sign that said Sherrif.

    He couldn't even spell the office he was running for, and won't be surprised to see "Laurey for Town Counsel" ads.


    🙄

     

     

    • Like 2

  25. 12 hours ago, Chris said:

    IMG_6174.jpeg

    I love this concept!!

    I would go further and suggest the County consider a concept like this on a regular basis......perhaps as part of the Community Building that has been proposed with ARP funds. As encouraging as I am about the new leadership for the Fair Board, it's disappointing to see the endless value of the Fairgrounds limited to Ag Society's occupancy for one week a year.

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...