MsKreed

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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. 

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:

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 . 

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.  

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.

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.

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).

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.

🙄

12 hours ago, Chris said:

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.

39 minutes ago, KarenK said:

What the heck is wrong with these kids?  

Sure seems like there are plenty of places to steal from in Ithaca and a lot less police to contend with there.

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.   🙄 

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.

1 hour ago, Lawana Morse said:

Now again, if the exec wants to use Peak to gather the information from his department heads, he is more than welcome to BUT the rules and procedures set in place by the legislature in 2008 state that in order to do business with us, the exec branch needs to follow the rules of putting his information into our system.

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:

1 hour ago, Lawana Morse said:

We do not have department heads coming to meetings to answer questions. We play the back and forth game and just don't get good information to make decisions. And I'm really to the point that I feel like I need to vote against everything brought to us because of the refusal of communication which would not be in the best interest of the community but as with everything in this world, things seems to be reaching boiling points. 

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?  

12 hours ago, Adam said:

not that i disagree, but all that will accomplish is to further the pissing in each other's sandboxes as i believe the "control" of IT is the Exec's area

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.  

Quote

 

At one point, journalists were able to gaze upward from the tunnel, through a hole, and make eye contact with soldiers standing in a courtyard within the UNRWA facility.

Inside one of the UNRWA buildings, journalists saw a room full of computers with wires stretching down into the ground. Soldiers then showed them a room in the underground tunnel where they claimed the wires connected.

That underground room bore a wall of electrical cabinets with multicolored buttons and was lined with dozens of cables. The military claimed the room served as a hub powering tunnel infrastructure in the area.

“Twenty meters above us is the UNRWA headquarters,” said Lt. Col. Ido, whose last name was redacted by the military. “This is the electricity room, you can see all around here. The batteries, the electricity on walls, everything is conducted from here, all the energy for the tunnels which you walked though them are powered from here.”

 

56 minutes ago, Chris said:

Anyone catch the Kennedy throw back ad for RFK Jr. last night? 

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. 

17 minutes ago, Ann said:

My first thought was what kind of President will he be if individuals working with/for him do things without his knowledge.

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). 

For the last several years, I have voted for the Libertarian candidate, even though I know there is no chance they'd receive enough votes to win New York's electoral votes.  Contrary to the flawed logic of critics who say this is a "spoiler" vote that will only "take" votes away from one of the candidates.....I do not believe my vote is wasted by voting this way.

First it's my vote to "give", and never belonged to either major candidate. So nothing was "taken" from them unless we assume they someone had some claim to my vote to begin with. 

Second, even if we did subscribe to that premise.....perhaps it could make a difference in a swing state. But this is New York State; the blue candidate will get all of our electoral votes anyway. 

And lastly (most importantly).....a vote for someone other than D/R is not simply a "symbolic" gesture that just sends some message without real world consequence. Voting something other than D/R is the best way to allow other parties to exist in in NYS. 

The major parties running the show in Albany have hinged the legal recognition of third parties on the number of votes a party receives in the most recent major election.  So, discouraging votes for 'outsiders' results in restricting future competition by those outside parties. Because they are unable to participate in future elections, unless they can gather prohibitively large numbers of signatures as an independent party, instead of a "recognized" party with automatic ballot access. 

Several have declared intent

But unfortunately,  the "duopoly" holds power within state legislatures that set eligibility laws.....and has colluded in some states to create unreasonable barriers to ballot access.

So, it could be impossible for anyone other than a D or R to win, if other candidates aren't on ballots in enough states to attain the 207 electoral votes needed.

Quote

 

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is chipping away toward the goal of being on the ballot in states across the country, increasing the chances he will influence the outcome of the White House race.

Mr. Kennedy has cleared the bar in Utah and recently collected the signatures needed to appear on the ballot in New Hampshire.

He has also decided to work smarter, not harder, in a half-dozen states — California, Delaware, Hawaii, Mississippi, North Carolina and Texas — where he filed a petition to create a new political party, which is an easier way to get onto the ballot in those states than running as an unaffiliated candidate.

“We have the field teams, volunteers, legal teams, paid circulators, supporters and strategists ready to get the job done,” said Kennedy campaign spokesperson Stefanie Spear. “Mr. Kennedy will be on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.”

Mr. Kennedy is not alone.

Cornel West, a prominent Black liberal academic and independent presidential candidate, is making ballot inroads, while No Labels, the group laying the foundation for a bipartisan “unity ticket,” is on the ballot in more than a dozen states.

The Green Party and the Libertarian Party have also secured ballot access in several states, including key battleground states.

Source