MsKreed

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. 😉

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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. 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.

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.

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: 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:

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 .

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.

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. 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.

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).

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).

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. 🙄

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.

I was wondering the same thing. Perhaps the vagrant population in Ithaca has stripped all the abandoned buildings in Ithaca clean? Or maybe one or more of them are from the area and had a "lead" on a vacant building to burgle? In any event, I doubt it will be reported when their appearance dates come and go.....when they'll either get probation or not show up at all. 🙄

he Chemung County Sheriff’s Office announces the arrest of 20-year old ABIGAIL V. FULLER, 21-year old CAMREN N. SUSMAN, 20-year old LEVI L. KEELING, and 21-year old JACKSON G. HAFL, all being from Ithaca, for Burglary in the Third Degree, a class D Felony offense of the New York State Penal Law. On February 22, 2024, Deputies responded to a vacant building in the Village of Wellsburg for a burglary in progress. Upon arriving, a Deputy observed subjects inside the building with flashlights. One subject, unaware of the Deputy being outside, exited the building with a box and plastic crate full of items. At which time, the suspect was detained by the Deputy. More Deputies responded to the scene and all suspects were detained. Further investigation revealed the subjects forced entry into the property through a rear door with the intent to steal property from within. The suspects were arrested and transported to the Chemung County Sheriff’s Office where they were fingerprinted and photographed. The suspects were issued appearance tickets to appear in the Wellsburg Village Court at a later date.

First of all......Mayor Lucas's initial reaction (while victims were still being triaged) was to beat the "gun violence" drum on cue. So, I guess it's not surprising that he'd take issue with any phrasing that blames the criminals instead of the inanimate object. Secondly....I'm trying to figure out when someone decided that "thug" is supposedly a reference to someone of color. The term has been in pop culture and mainstream vernacular since the 1920s to describe any criminal that uses threats of physical force, etc. It referred to organized Crime figures during Prohibition......like Lucky Luciano, Bugsy Siegel and Al Capone. And were depicted as white guys to the point of being a frickin' cliche "in the most classic sense" :

Thank you Lawana. I agree that it's appropriate for the Legislative Clerks to administer whatever Agenda platform is chosen, and that it is the Legislature's job to compare and choose a platform. This is the precedent since 2008, and the correct process. As long as his choice for an internal system for the Exec branch does not require a duplicated expense for taxpayers. The Granicus distributor has shown very poor reliability and inadequate support for the Streaming platform. I recall the streaming failures for at least 2 months (for the 12/11 meeting when Legislative salaries were passed). Approving more money for a vendor that is not meeting its commitment is a ridiculous waste. And I agree with this: Setting expectations and demanding accountability for the expenditures that each department is requesting is not unreasonable. In fact it's irresponsible for the Legislature to "rubber stamp" large expense requests without really knowing what they're spending our money on. If a department head is asking for funding for electronic signs, transit buses or building improvements/upgrades, the Legislature (and taxpayers) should at least have an idea of the specific products and services that amount is for....and ask questions about the justification. We just approved a $300k bond (to combine with $2.4 million in grants) for the "purchase of transit buses"at an estimated total cost of $2,730,000. There may be perfectly good reasons why this is a great investment. And if it's a good idea, then those who are asking for it should be eager to state the benefits. How many buses? Electric or diesel? If electric, will we need another multi-million dollar expense for charging capability?

I have no doubt that de-funding a few positions in a department that Moss oversees will cause more friction. But that shouldn't be an excuse, if the IT department is not effective, to keep wasting money on an over-bloated staff . There is no justification to spend more than we already are on Information Technology. If we are forced to pay an "expert", then such expert should be used instead of a portion of the IT payroll....not "in addition to". And honestly, Moss himself has been more than happy to 'stick it' to staff under his control. The week he was sworn in (January 2019) he asked the Legislature to slash the pay of all of his department heads (non-elected civilian staff -- some perfectly effective, not deficient in any way). This included the previous IT Director, and resulted in him choosing to retire immediately from a job he was great at. If he stayed a couple of more years (as intended), the lowered salary could have lowered his average income and reduced his pension for life. The notice Moss gave on cutting their salaries was not only during Christmas Season....it was so short that the man didn't have time to retire before the New year (under the best terms for his 38 years of dedicated service), and needed to request special Legislature approval to extend his benefits (See HERE).

Considering that Granicus has not provided adequate support for their Streaming platform, it does not give me a lot of confidence in their PEAK agenda software that the Exec purchased. I'm further amazed that a few people commented on Strange's post that the County should consider hiring outside IT services to get the Streaming issues resolved. For the $26k/year subscription that we are paying them, Granicus should be able to work with our County IT Department. And if we need "outside experts" because the County IT Department isn't proficient enough to handle it, the Legislature should be considering whether the 15 FTE employees with a payroll of over $800k/year plus benefits are a good investment.

More reason to distrust the UN and its “Relief” organization (UNRWA): AP News - Israel unveils tunnels underneath Gaza City headquarters of UN agency for Palestinian refugees This is not (as AOC and Tlaib would have us believe) just a dozen rogue aid workers sympathizing with the Palestinian’s plight. It’s evidence of a large scale effort by UNRWA to create and perpetuate a “need” for its own services (and unlimited funding).......by purposefully engaging in activities intended to pour gasoline on the fire that is the Israeli-Hamas conflict.

Yeah.... When I saw it, I thought it was just a quirky throwback created to be reminiscent of the JFK days, then found out today that it was actual footage and audio from a 1960 campaign commercial.

He (correctly) noted in his apology: "FEC rules prohibit Super PACs from consulting with me or my staff." This is from the 2010 SCOTUS ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. That case determined that PACs have essentially the same First Amendment rights as individuals regarding free speech (independent and separate from any candidate or organization they support).