MsKreed

1 hour ago, TwinTiersLiving said:

As for the "why," though, one big factor in the divergence of the accents is rhotacism. The General American accent is rhotic and speakers pronounce the r in words such as hard. The BBC-type British accent is non-rhotic, and speakers don't pronounce the r, leaving hard sounding more like hahd. Before and during the American Revolution, the English, both in England and in the colonies, mostly spoke with a rhotic accent.

If I'm reading this correctly, this makes it sound like they believe it was the Brits whose accent changed, not Americans.

1 hour ago, Chris said:

Douglas argues that the majority of COVID-19 infections come from outside the classroom and that the virus is rarely being transmitted to students inside the school. Experts say that’s because exposed students are at home quarantining.

I don't het how the expert explanation makes sense.  IF they had been infected by a classmate they were exposed to......quarantining at home after that exposure would not be the reason they remained uninfected at home. 

11 hours ago, Adam said:

it is more that you know its more a social justice -type move.

That's what I was thinking...especially when they pointedly note:

Quote

 “The American Way,” which can mean something incredibly optimistic or woefully negative depending on who you are.

I guess there aren't a lot of Superman fans among the tens of thousands enduring arduous treks in pursuit of "The American Way" at the border.

I kinda knew that Sulu had become a bitter old codger, but he needs to get a grip.

It's doubtful anyone would even know his name if not for Shatner.....

Grumpy Old Spacemen: George Takei Mocks William Shatner Over Space Flight

59 minutes ago, TwinTiersLiving said:

A constitutional county is one that ensures the county government will not enact nor enforce any laws that encroach upon the rights of citizens under the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Under the Constitution, isn't to deferring to the Supreme Court of the United States the only way for a “constitutional county” to meet that definition?

It’s a circular argument, as Article III, Section 2 says that:

Quote

The judicial Power [of SCOTUS] shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Beginning with John Marshall, who served as the Chief Justice of the United States from 1801 until his death in 1835........Justices and Constitutional scholars have concluded that SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution.

It seems like it would actually violate the Constitution for any county to take it upon themselves to interpret the document, when the document expressly says that the Judicial branch is the only entity with the power to interpret the document.

To boldly go where no Nonagenarian has gone before!

I imagine there will be some employers who may need to deny an accommodation for "undue hardship" for business operations.....

But if it's a true hardship, then it wouldn't give a free pass for anyone - including a medical exemption from a qualified allergy specialist or for a valid "sincerely held religious belief" that opposes using fetal tissue.

As worrisome as these recurring reports are, at least Elmira isn't necessarily the worst around.

I've been listening regularly to an Ithaca classic rock radio station. 

As a result, I hear daily news briefs from the Ithaca area.....and their shootings, stabbings and home invasions seem to be even more frequent than Elmira. 

Looks like a journalistic choice, more than a change of tune. 

WENY says:  "80 employees resigned or let-go due to vaccine mandate"

WETM that Moss cited worded it:  "Arnot Health: ICU at 100% capacity; approx. 80 unvaccinated employees laid off"

Bottom line is that they lost 80 employees to this mandate. 

There really isn't a distinction, is there? 

Those 50 "voluntary resignations" were predicated on the fact that they would not meet the requirement.

All 80 fell outside the mandate, whether they proclaimed it in advance or not. And unemployment won't cover any of them - regardless of whether they "resigned" or were "dismissed".

Reach out to Grasso and ask where he can point you since Downtown Development won't respond.....he seems motivated to call BS when he sees it. 

There are a number of cities that build "pedestrian friendly" spaces that boost business traffic (Ithaca Commons, Corning Gaffer District, etc). 

HOWEVER.....I think that sort of thing has to be part of a bigger revitalization strategy. It can't just be "pedestrian friendly" if it's just providing more places for existing vagrants to loiter. 

The idea should be to draw people (in cars) into the area and be inviting enough that they will park those cars and wander and linger. That means having available parking that is convenient, safe and affordable....so people will leave those vehicles unattended for while they dally around town and explore what it has to offer.  This is something Corning could do better at, but is still far superior to Elmira.

The mall has plenty of parking, but has seriously declined on what it offers to encourage that lingering traffic.

Besides Arts in the Park and Farmer's markets, Elmira could try offering things like  pageants, craft shows, boat shows and putt-putt that are spaced out to motivate people to keep wandering.....without the counter-productive money-grab that discourages vendors to participate.

I remember when I moved into my first apartment.

Fully furnished with noisy appliances and second hand dishes that didn’t match....but felt so exciting to be “independent” and gonna be living the dream.

🤣

31 minutes ago, Chris said:

I suppose I could have and searched those out to add on to. I can probably merge them. It just never occurred to me to spend time searching them out. Let me try it and see how it works.

Honestly, I’m making shit up I go along at this point in the hopes of keeping this thing going. All ideas and input is welcome.

That's why I mentioned it....cuz that was the sort stuff that I first thought of when you brought up the idea "continuing in-depth" discussion.

On 9/16/2021 at 11:03 AM, Chris said:

Any thoughts on how the new posts are coming out?

To be honest, I haven't noticed much "new" in the way of posts?

I really liked this idea: 

On 9/14/2021 at 10:02 AM, TwinTiersLiving said:

the focus will shift to more thoughtful discussion about topics in a broader sense. It occurred to me that the "Covid" thread on the previous site worked really well for continued conversation as things progressed in the early months of 2020. 

I think we can do that more, with better and more interesting results. 

But it doesn't seem you opted to go with that approach on topics that I'd have thought would lend themselves to this idea.

Like we already had Cuomo "proposes" legalized marijuana, then the legislation "passing" that....topics that could have been one continued and evolving discussion (that would avoid anyone needing to repeat earlier thoughts from another thread, etc).  Seems like adding discussion of the "results" of legalization into an existing topic.....would have supported the notion of "continued conversation as things progressed". 

Likewise, maybe building in the existing topic of vaccine mandates ordered for healthcare, could have worked better that a new topic to discuss "fallout" of those mandates. 

On 9/14/2021 at 11:43 AM, Chris said:

I don't know that any reliable testing has come forth that differentiates between, "Yes, this person is under the influence NOW" and "It's in their system, but they're not technically under the influence now."

I do believe this is needed. And wonder if the DEA's arbitrary authority to classify it a schedule 1 narcotic is a hindrance to private industry creating a test that is more accurate.

Aside from driving, there is also the question of work... I know employers can unilaterally prohibit employees from "illegal drug" use, so complete abstinence should theoretically be expected because  - Schedule 1. 

On the other hand.....presence of lower scheduled drugs like morphine or fentanyl can be exempt by a prescription. Opioids can linger in the system for a few days (but less than cannabis), so it's not "proof" that one is impaired if a test is positive for opioids.  But a positive pot test is an immediate "fail"...

This is a distinction that I think can be a real safety/legal issues. Particularly when it comes to Workers Comp insurance, which increasingly require drug tests to assess whether the employee was under the influence, and deny claims.

For instance, if Jack is a forklift operator who has a script for oxycodone 'as needed', he should abide by the "do not drive or operate heavy machinery" warning. However, even if taking it on Saturday and Sunday makes him woozy over the weekend, it wouldn't prohibit him from working Monday.  If he miscalculates a tiny bit on Monday and is injured operating his rig.....He'd likely be considered "at fault" if he'd tested positive for pot, but not for a positive opioid test. Even though he "may" have still been popping pills Monday, it can't be proven and he was "legally" prescribed the drug.

However.....if he had Jill spotting for him and she was also injured when he tipped the forklift......is it fair for her claim to be denied if she had a brownie 10 days ago?

On 9/14/2021 at 12:52 PM, KarenK said:

Determining if you are under the influence is definitely an issue although back in my fun days the slitty eyes and and pinpoint pupils were usually a good indication that something was up.

There are some indicators for sure. But it needs to be distilled down to measurable empirical proof. Not subjective observations of an arresting LEO, because they said it is so.

It is disturbing to rely on some magically "infallible" aptitude for spotting drug impairment (in this link) that are claimed to identify drug use that can't be detected by blood or urine tests.

Quote

 

"When you brought up that you had a clean blood test when complaining to Internal Affairs, their answer was what?" Keefe asked.

"They said, 'Yeah, we see this happen all the time. Um, the test results come back wrong all the time,'" she said.

"So the test results were wrong?" Keefe asked.

"Yeah, that's what they said," Ebner replied. "The test results were wrong, and also, if I had a urine test, it would have come back positive for drugs."

But Ebner got her own urine test the same week as her arrest -- scanning for any metabolites that would still be in her system. The urine test was also negative for marijuana -- or other drugs.

"This training is so powerful, that they believe they can detect drugs that a blood test will not detect," Keefe said. "Is that surprising to you?"

 

1 hour ago, Chris said:

Well hell, I can do that here from home!! Attribution to actual local farmers is important. The lack of it makes me wonder, who were the farmers? Where are they from, are they actually local? Are they actually farmers? Do they even exist???

The highlighted "attribution" point is soo, so so relevant.....that attribution is precisely why any local business person would welcome such calls on stories even tangentially related to their field.  In the same way a collectible toy guy or other "local expert" would welcome the citation...local news media have a wealth of sources like this that they have totally abandoned. 

3 hours ago, TwinTiersLiving said:

It's difficult to distinguish which has driven the model over the past decade, consumer demands or the never ending search for ways to cut increase revenue ( at the cost of community identity, investigation, and quality of news stories). 

Lack of "imagination", journalistic training and adequate pay for those skills? 

My Journalism professor (20 years ago) emphasized that "all news is local".....meaning that for every one of the state and national stories that's pulled off "the wire" a real reporter can find a local official, business or resident who that story could impact....preferably both pro and con perspectives.

A quick look at some of the state and national stories from some local news agencies in the last day that "could" have included some local perspective:

Toy Hall of Fame finalists (Pick up the phone and talk to a local retailer of collectible toys?)

Senate leaders spar over raising the debt ceiling (surely there is an investment counselor or econ professor at a local college who would take your call)

Simone Biles Congressional testimony on gymnast abuse (no attempt to reach out to local athletes or experts)

Tax filing extension for some NY businesses affected by Hurricane Ida (advice from a CPA or tax attorney?)

Granted....the local TV media relies heavily on unpaid or barely paid interns to provide "coverage", and beyond that the ones getting paid could often earn more at McDs. So verbatim regurgitation of "packaged" news is getting what they pay for. 

11 hours ago, Adam said:

thats because those professions have more powerful and well connected Unions

I don’t know that’s the root cause. I think the broad authority that NYS DOH has to pass controlling regulations has more to do with it than union force.   

Healthcare employees in NYS public service were singled out in the original order (before expanding to private providers)....and represented by the same unions as those in other jobs titles with testing options.

The federal mandate for ALL federal employees and contractor, as well as private employers over 100 workers applies to private workforce with and without union representation, but still has vax or test options. 

11 hours ago, Adam said:

im not anti-vax but am surely anti-mandate. it isnt right that ones livelihood(which they are already taxed for the pleasure of securing) is threatened in such a flippant and possibly illegal manner.

Sadly....There’s a growing trend that insists we can’t be one and not the other....because those two notions are completely synonymous: 

When that distinction has been offered by Moss or Strange, there’s a former local elected official incessantly attacking them who appears convinced (as are many) of the above definition....that anti-mandate is the exact same concept as anti-vax. 

Diatribes and obtuseness displayed by the "mandates with no alternatives" adherents frequently come from individuals with as much authority (even greater authority at state & federal levels) and/or public influence as the current HHS Chair....and are as dangerous and divisive as the ignorant rants coming from him.

2 hours ago, Adam said:

In short there is growing contempt for stupid, not sane and reasonable caution unfortunately the 'net sometimes masks those distinctions

Unfortunately, this is too true. 

There's a mob mentality, exacerbated from Cuomo to Hochul....and POTUS that seems to make it acceptable (even noble) to dismiss reasonable caution (as well as sincerely held convictions, IF the fetal tissue allegation is true).....and just scream "safe and effective" at a louder volume.

As ignorant and combative as are theories like tracking chips and transhumanist DNA alterations insane BS....some of that 'masked' distinction (aka thoughtless omission/dismissal) of sane rational concerns comes off as equally ignorant and hostile for someone within that 'rational concern' realm.

Bombardment of rhetoric from the anti anti-vax mob mentality already drastically compouds the stress as Ive worked with my allergy specialists to determine the safest course of action.

 If my job was on the line in addition to that anxiety and harassment?

Quitting would absolutely be the best and healthiest choice (for mental well being). 

3 minutes ago, Chris said:

I’m pretty sure you know where I stand on that. 

Honestly, no. I don't.

I'd recalled that you'd made some acknowledgement to medical exclusions in the EARLIER TOPIC pertaining to mandates for healthcare workers, but once you created this separate topic, not so much. You've seemed more like bordering on unilateral contempt the unvaccinated....even after I'd tried to make allusions to medical contraindications/exemptions at least three times.  

Under a different format (like social media), your remarks "here" would pretty much be the exact stuff I'd filter or put on "snooze".

43 minutes ago, TwinTiersLiving said:

The court papers said all of the available vaccines employ aborted fetus cell lines in their testing, development or production.

This is the first I'd heard of this claim.  If true, I do see many people could sincerely find that objectionable (even if I personally don't). 

24 minutes ago, Chris said:

I once worked with nurses who regularly went without meal breaks and were practically wetting their pants they'd been holding it so long. Why? Because there was work to be done, someone needed help more than they needed to eat or relieve themselves. So to see health care workers even threatening to walk off the job irritates me. You're leaving your team holding the bag, if nothing else. 

I get that sentiment....I really do.  

But I also feel that can apply to any number of "limits" that someone may have for their personal career choice. Whether they're putting up with low pay, exhausting shifts, aches from heavy lifting, shitty clueless administration.....or a work schedule that interferes with their Euchre league, their choice whether to stay or go is likely to affect patient care and coworkers' burden. 

34 minutes ago, Chris said:

The problem these days is everyone thinks their opinion or views are the gospel truth and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to be verbally browbeaten over it. 

What does that verbal browbeating look like? :

35 minutes ago, Chris said:

Ultimately, I don't give a damn what someone does or doesn't do. You don't want the shot? Then don't get it. But one, I don't want to hear the "woe is me" stories as shown on the TV when someone gets sick. You made a choice, here's the result. But also, the anti-vax people need to STFU with their B.S. statistics and "facts" that they never can seem to back up. Which, if you know me, is pretty well keeping with my past views. You don't want it, again, I don't care. End of story. If it's such a personal choice to you, then you do you pumpkin, enjoy your ionized water and panda piss elixir you think is boosting your immune system. 

Of course, you're welcome to your own views.

I'm not entirely clear if the STFU and aversion to "woe is me" stories is confined to conspiracy-based anti-vaxx zealots....or whether anti-vax B.S. statistics and "facts" that aren't backed up extends to those with medical contraindications to vaccine ingredients. 

It does seem like you've expressly opted not to note any distinction between reasonable or unreasonable "choices" not to vaccinate.  Copy that. 

I'll also make a note to refrain from "woe is me" stories if I ever have a raging infection that doesn't respond to the myacin antibiotic family...since it's my "choice" to have penicillin & sulfa allergies.

14 minutes ago, Chris said:

Yeah I fully admit that. 😉 I guess to me it’s a if you’re gonna do “my body, my choice”, go all in or nothing sort of thing.

I guess "Devil's Advocate" is one angle....but frankly, I'm weary of the reductio ad absurdum that's become rife on both sides.

Being among the minority of people for whom vaccines can pose real life risks, the ever-louder screams of "safe and effective!! 😬" by keyboard warriors almost feels a little threatening at times.

As if either we minority cases are expendable, or the harpies are just too thick-headed and self-righteous to grasp (or respect) others' circumstances. 

5 minutes ago, Chris said:

Both involve injecting something into the body, I believe is the reasoning for that example. 

That's a loose analogy, but not exactly an apples to apples comparison, since one is a minute amount administered intradermally as opposed to a full dose. 

I for one, voluntarily sought out intradermal testing for the likely allergens in the various vaccines. The positive reaction determined for the doctors that an intramuscular full vaccine is a really bad idea. 

I really can't fathom why so many politicians and vaccine mandate supporters are so vehemently opposed to testing options that are supported by science.....even at the risk of dangerously low staffing rates.

32 minutes ago, KarenK said:

Peoples reasoning to get it or not is really all over the place and sometimes bordering on alarming but still it should remain their choice.

Yeah, valid or absurd, it's their choice. And cries of "abandoning patients" seems a bit too Soviet for me.....as if the collective has some "right" to their servitude.