leh-nerd skin-erd

Thanks for the feedback and the opinions you have shared. I mean that sincerely, but it doesn’t change anything for me and my pragmatic approach to life. The simple fact is that a quick review of the history of world reveals that some leaders attempt to subjugate and modify behavior. Folks on the left just worked themselves into a froth the last 5 years for that very reason, that was a top down effort. If you’re a believer in the innate goodness of all people who seek and consolidate incredible power, I think you’re naive but it’s possible you’re correct. My reference to kneeling before science comes about simply because that while the compliant were compelled to comply, the science seemed to stop at the door step of social justice. Suddenly, the impact of large gatherings, social intimacy, animated interaction between individuals resulted in a COVID mulligan of sorts. Never mind that folks from those tens of thousands of different household did not arrive by teleportation, that they interacted within tens of thousand more along the way. The transmission of the virus from these gatherings must have resulted in what— tens of thousands of dead? Hundreds of thousands? When hypocrisy is the order of the day, it’s a foregone conclusion that the message will be questioned. That’s before we talk about political leaders gathering in violation of their own rules, inauguration gatherings during a pandemic and the like. I read your posts and generally appreciate your perspective, but I’m going to point out you mischaracterized what I wrote about the seriousness of the virus. I never implied your neighbor was “weak”, those are your words. As for your nephew, that’s a horrible thing for a young man to experience and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. I know people who have had a very difficult time with COVID, young, healthy and the elderly. Some recovered and unfortunately some died. I was quite clear about the severity for some of our population, I’m not sure why you’d hop up on a soapbox and imply I said something to the contrary. The question didn’t boil down to “do nothing” or “total lockdown”. Being pragmatic, I always understood that while I’m a healthy 60ish year old, the reality is that I might well be the one to contract the virus, suffer the after effects and/or die. Sometimes, that’s the way life goes. Extra points for the Trump reference, btw. Maybe he’s the one political operator not kissed by angels, wrapped in rainbows and with an incredibly altruistic heart made of crunchy peanut butter?

Alas my friends, with this sort of common sense approach to the defleecing of this country, I'm thinking some major skeletons will be created/positioned in your respective closets, and/or a series of unfortunate and cataclysmic events shall befall you. You'll be missed.

I don't see myself as cynical, I'm simply pragmatic. I started off where you are--that government officials were well-intentioned trying to react to the pandemic and change our culture overnight. As I've said before, I've followed protocols, distanced, masked and have seen near 100% compliance in the area I live in over the last 13 months or so. Unfortunately, in the calm light of day, I can't square the handling and the numbers you shared--assuming they are an accurate representation of what actually occurred--make me all the more certain I am correct. On the one hand, we were advised to 'Shelter in place and avoid everyone or you're going to kill people', on the other people were encouraged to gather en masse in the streets with nary a thought of the potential fallout. On a third hand we were told that this virus was particularly devastating to the elderly and immunocompromised, while on the fourth hand the decision was made to put folks at risk of transmission with the elderly and immunocompromised. It seems to me that one of two things occurred: 1. Our leadership was so utterly incompetent as to not recognize that there was a major disconnect between the science we were told to kneel before and the actions we saw play out nightly on the evening news; 2. Something a bit more nefarious was afoot. Fear , death and despair are good business for Stephen King, the media in general and politicians looking to wrest control from the opposition. I say it was option 2--tacit approval of events to spread the virus, under the guise of social justice. The final straw for me came when I took a trip down to Florida, returned home and found the "We're all in this together" rules as it related to quarantine rules for NYers returning from Florida. Turns out that if you were a NY resident returning, there was enforced compliance--TEST 3 days before departure! COMPLETE virus paperwork upon return! QUARANTINE for 4 days! TEST on day 4! CONSENT to be tracked via mobile device! REPORT symptoms! On the opposite end of the spectrum...if you were a resident of adjoining states....the deal went like this: ALL GOOD! No tracking, no testing, mandatory quarantine or the like. At the same time, with cases surging, Old man Biden beseeches us all to mask up for a hundred days, suddenly states begin to lift restrictions and on and on it goes. Personally I believe the COVID numbers are artificially inflated to the tine of the 25-30% referenced by Dr. Birx in a presser a few months ago. Anecdotally, my neighbor passed away 3 days after being diagnosed with COVID...and the complete disintegration of her digestive track over a 5 month time frame where she was unable to maintain weight, keep food down, and dealt with explosive diarrhea as a result of the impact of radiation and chemotherapy for cancer in years past. COVID is serious, significant and deadly for certain people. Was the complete lockdown of the economy, schools shuttered and an entire class of haves/have nots necessary to control it? No, I don't think so.

Maybe it was the weather, but probably not. I've decided that the vast majority of the restrictions and shutdowns were politically motivated, and while I can write off some of that as the learning curve for the virus, I think the black swan event was created by Black Swan political ops across the board. That's not to say the virus isn't dangerous for some, it surely is. At the same time, death and despair are good business for the politician positioning him/herself as the savior, and it would appear that Americans in general are pretty damn compliant when push comes to shove.

I think he’s going down on the most severe charge filed. This case is about as high profile as you can get and the downside to guilty on a lesser charge is incalculable. The downside of a member of the jury not being influenced by the potential ramifications of their vote is huge. There are no offsets—Chauvin controlled the scene, he controlled the victim, he showed a disregard for Floyd’s humanity—and if it’s a technical spread between the harshest punishment and the next level down, very few people are going to spend much time shedding tears for the guy.

The Q is silent though. That’s how we know who’s in and who’s out. And in fairness, “snitches get stitches” is a phrase from a patriarchal world, in the new post-COVID world snitches may be the hero’s of the revolution. I’m not sure who’s left to respect? Our policy decisions were all over the page, with the compliant being assured compliance (and in some cases, submission) were vital to our humanity and survival, but the non-compliant encouraged to do whatever suited their emotions in the moment. Our preeminent science guy was indeed on several sides of the coin at times, firm on what caused the spread (9 or more people from 2 or more addresses at Grandma’s), but sorta meh on speaking with any authority on 15,000+ shoulder to shoulder marching together for 15 weeks in a row. I don’t recall any Fauci wisdom being dispensed on the NY nursing home issues back when it was all the rage in NY, in fact I recall he was quite complimentary on the plan. As for schools and public employees in general, it’s not complicated. The reality is that when income is unaffected, people can afford to take a long and ultra-cautious approach to just about anything, and that was the approach taken in many cases. Some of it was about safety of course, some about control, some about future negotiations. The losers were the customers getting a substandard education. Finally, big picture, it’s hard (and ultimately dangerous) not to wonder how much of the COVID lockdown was strictly political. Folks want to take a shot at the false god (I wouldn’t know Alex Berenson from Alex Rodriguez), but looking at the past year, and the as-if by magic loosening of restrictions as people start figuring this all out, it’s pretty clear to me many ‘experts’ belong in that category. Then again—maybe Florida and Georgia—states that opened early—are the zombie wastelands we were assured they would be.

Ah, I see. I didn’t think I was much of a puzzle either, but I’m apparently a mahfahkin Rubik's Cube. You placed the emphasis on the money, the luck in this case has very little to do with the money, everything to do with her recovery. $27,000,000 and permanently disabled with a brain injury is bad $&&$ing outcome. To be clear, I hope is that the girl fully recovers, that BR is charged with a crime where a crime is warranted, serves jail time commensurate with the charges, that he is punished financially for the injuries that resulted from his stupidity and carelessness, and that the young lady and her family receive a large settlement (or verdict should it go that route) because she suffered traumatic injuries as a result of his actions.

Wrongo Captain Misunderstandingman. The luck I was referring to was that the child with a severe head injury recovers fully, with no residual injury and no permanent disability. They can throw the book criminally and financially at the guy who caused the injuries even assuming a full recovery. The worst possible outcome for this girl and her family is a massive verdict because she “deserves it” because she’s permanently disabled and needs care in perpetuity.

I think the chances of a culpable party giving anonymously to any great deal are pretty low, especially given the culpability part. Now, AR assuming he has no skin in the game, donating a mill or two of his 10, 20 or 30 mill fortune (whatever that may be) because he grieves for the victim and what the family is going through, that would be a beautiful thing indeed. On the settlement, I agree on the when, but in the big picture, the outcome of her injuries and her recovery really matters and that’s not going to be resolved for quite some time into the future.

I think you’re right on with this. The emotional side of most people wants whatever pathetic financial version of justice this young lady and her family can get, and most don’t care where the money comes from. Chiefs, NFL, Andy Reid, whatever. The logical side takes a different perspective. The financial compensation relative to this girl’s injury is virtually impossible to determine at this point. I’d think it would be malpractice to settle a case like this for quite some time. With luck, the value drops (relatively speaking) because she makes a complete recovery. To suggest the team, NFL or Reid the senior wade into this quagmire if not culpable is the wrong approach. I would think they weigh out the facts, take a good hard look on whether they are going to be brought into this matter and lose, and proceed accordingly. Now, in a rational, peaceful and kind world, nothing would make me happier than all the legal $&@& be put to the side and out of the kindness of their collective hearts the family received assistance on a massive scale. I’d be happier still if the attorneys representing the family offered a reduced fee to put more in their pocket.

Parallel freaks me out. Side by side, forever, never any closer, never any farther away. Just...there...for eternity. It isn’t natural.

The cottage industry of fear mongering has some legs to it. I’ve just decided I’m going to fear everything except large groups of 10,000+, private dinners with very important politicians and their fraternity bros, and the maskless Biden grandbabies walking around Washington like they are Kennedy kids. It just makes it easier than calculating the odds that with one Pfizer shot, I’m 80% protected against 100% of the virus, but only 75% certain that 100% of the wait staff has washed at least 50% of their hands. Fear. It’s what’s for dinner.

Niagara’s Rules For Civil Home Invasion Discourse: INVITE....your invader in; ASSUME...they mean you no harm and just want to talk; INQUIRE...as to whether or not they are packin; ENGAGE...in meaningful dialogue relative to how you feel about the invasion; ASSURE...them that if they limit the attack to the 3Rs (rob, rape, rough up) they are still good people; POINT...them to the valuables hidden throughout the home; ADOPT...a submissive position; RELAX..secure in the knowledge that a gun would only help as you were being beaten severely about the head, neck, shoulders and genitalia if you had one! RECORD...the interaction for the DATELINE episode detailing your demise; RECOGNIZE...that your death will be the impetus for gun sales soaring throughout the heartland and finally: ENJOY this experience that will be colorfully interwoven into the fabric of your life!

Peloton?

Correct, we don't need to know the color of the beach towel she draped over him, the weather on the day it all took place, nor the location of the facility where the massage took place. However, the actions of the associate are an important part of the story, certainly not a minor detail. The author was careful to explain actions taken to vet the comments of the family member as it relates to the fact pattern, yet the referring associate exits like the first Becky on Roseanne. I'll let it go, but it makes no sense NOT to attempt to corroborate and write about what she found.

Maybe, on the other hand, that could easily be addressed in the piece. The story indicates Mary identified herself on condition of anonymity, she provided the name of the relative (not named in the story but shared with the journalist, makes sense based on your scenario), why wouldn't the journalist include that fact pattern in her story? In the article, the author indicates that after the interaction between Watson and the massage therapist, she calls the referring business associate, describes the encounter in graphic detail and the referring associate responds "I'll talk to him.". After that--the journalist probes no further? If you're a journalist writing a story of this magnitude during the times we live in, would you let it drop there? If she asked Mary, she would have received an answer, and that's part of the story. If she didn't ask Mary, well she wasn't professional in her role. That's odd. My guess is the author reached out to the associate, spoke with them and chose not to include a reference to that person in the story. Personally, I would rule out the other person declined to comment/refused to cooperate, because that's easily explainable. I'd also rule out that Mary refused to provide the associates name, that's easily explained in the story as well.

Absolutely spot on if the allegations are accurate. The thing about an article like this—the author mentions the part about the family member who corroborates the facts as related by Mary immediately after the interaction, but no mention of a follow up to the referring massage therapist? This strikes me as a bit odd given the nature of the story. There’s no obligatory “we reached out to the other massage therapist but did not hear back..” or “they declined to speak with us.”.

It’s come to this. Send me you address, and publish your 40 speed. I need only have one more gun than you in the event it comes to it, and just a step faster if the full on zombie apocalypse befalls us. Its not personal etc etc. Btw, these nuts are by definition nuts, so I think you’re wrong on the gun v gun issue.

No, everyone can make their own decision on whether or not to be armed. I can tell from your position you would take the chance and remain unarmed, as I have to this day. That would be your right, of course, but you’re looking to force your standards to everyone. The reality is that the vast, vast majority of gun owners only pose a threat to those intent on doing them harm.

So, I’m not a gun owner but I know many individuals that are. I know of one owner of an AR 15, he uses it for sport shooting out on land designed for that sort of thing. Just to be clear, I think he and his friends go out to privately owned land, set up &$*# and shoot the heck out of it. Anyway... Personally, I have no desire to own something like that for a variety of reasons, foremost in my thoughts is the high likelihood that I would inadvertently discharge the weapon and lose a foot or leg. That said, when it comes to protecting those around me, I often wonder if I’m on the wrong side of gun ownership. This is a scene from Rochester this summer: During the same time frame, there were videos of people climbing on the roof of a house, and just recently, there were citizens being targeted and confined to a Wegman’s store in Rochester as well: https://13wham.com/news/local/after-protest-at-east-ave-store-wegmans-leaders-acknowledge-pain-in-community and... https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/black-lives-matter-protesters-ny-trapped-estimated-100-customers-inside-grocery-store The two linked articles show divergent views on the issue. One includes a statement from Wegmen’s acknowledging pain and throws a little commercial in there about their diversity and inclusion (but nothing about the shoppers confined to the store), the other the actual event. My question, rhetorical at this point, is where does the line cross with the very uneasy reliance on diners, homeowners and shoppers at a frigging grocery store that the assembled masses are ‘simply protesting’ v when one needs to realize that their life is in danger and personal protective measures must be taken? See, common sense and more than a passing acknowledgement of the rules of civilized society tells us that when 400 people surround you, scream in your face, knock plates, shatter windows and throw chairs all around that you are in jeopardy. The r*tarded white kid in the first video beseeching his fellow protestors not to riot and throw chairs at people notwithstanding, that’s a dangerous situation. When people assemble in the roof of your home while others rage outside in the driveway, you’re asked to take a gigantic leap of faith that no one is going to breech the home and not do you harm. Finally, when an assembled mass of folks herds you back into a building and blocks all the exits, one might reasonably assume they have nefarious intent. My point as a non-gun-owning-reasonable-regulation-supporting-tax-paying-citizen-who-understands-the-police-likely-respond-after-the-carnage-begins is that you’re asking an awful lot of people to sacrifice their right to defend themselves in light of these types of events. Put another way, when people are outside my house screaming about transgressions and climbing up to access my bedroom windows, I’m thinking firearms and some ammo makes the most sense—and it has nothing to do with the television they might walk off with.

@Niagara Bill suggests a tax of a 1000% on gang dues, plus restricting access to criminality. Chef Jim, you’re on the clock.

Ya sick bastage! Have a good night.

I had responded to you, considered what you wrote after taking care of some other tasks and realized what you were talking about with respect to the op allowing me to complain. While I did not intend to complain (and didn't, not about compensation anyway) I can see where it appears that was my goal. My bad there. Part of that was actually in response to your post just prior to mine, and an attempt to offer perspective as to why parents (customer) expect certain things from a teacher/school (service provider), whether fair or not. I think it triggered me when you painted a vivid portrait of working in a school akin to walking the yard at Attica, and who might or might be able to handle a day. Pursuit of enlightenment and higher education is a noble goal for the right person. Pursuit of higher education to achieve a more stable employment situation with regard to salary and benefits is noble as well. Did we disagree on this issue?

"Qualified" to be recognized as a world renown expert on the subject of "Is Being a Teacher Hard?", no. Qualified to offer an opinion on a message board where the question posed was "Do you think teaching is a hard job?", where you yourself wrote several paragraphs on the relative nature of hardness (gross--and damn you for making me type this), love for ones avocation as it relates to hardness (disgusting) , and your days as a pizza delivery man, I'm as qualified as anyone in the world. To the bolded, I understand--emphasis on 'to me'. So, when considering and contemplating the job being hard, it's a presumed 10-12 hour day, every day. There is downward pressure on efficiency ("More, we need more, we need faster"), the risk off accident and/or injury a daily occupational (and thus employment) hazard, a high likelihood of physical impairment due to repetitive motion, gps tracking of whereabouts, time spent at a given stop/on break etc and the downward pressure of management on reducing time across the board, and in this particular case, concerns about guarantees as it relates to income once retirement commences. Don't get me wrong--I'll mention the drive along the ocean with the air pods, tank top and breaks for sun tanning next time I speak to my relative, but I got the feeling that wasn't the vibe in the upstate NY city in which he operates. So--my definition of what constitutes hard employment may be different from yours because we have different perspectives. That does not equate to real easy, no big deal, unworthy or anything else. I respect the job and the people who do it, I really don't know how else to say it. People have opinions on everything, from politics to lifestyle choices to cell phones to cost of the gas bill and so on. Why would you assume that wouldn't be the case with education? Again, let's be clear: I can't speak to the folks on the big Island, but I never said, suggested, or implied that teachers are lazy and terrible. I've had no interaction with any educator and administrator that remotely came close to that sort of conversation, rather, I interact respectfully and expect nothing but the same in return. My children had teacher's that they (and we) loved, I've had them in my life and they are a gift indeed. Does that mean nothing else can ever be discussed? Last weekend, I hung out with an old friend who is a middle school math teacher. We have conversations about these subjects and miraculously, we got through it without punches thrown, tears shed or anguish in our hearts. His general philosophy is that there are some very good teachers and some very soft teachers, and he respects the good ones and the soft ones bug him more every year. So...you wouldn't use the word 'hard' based on your definition, I didn't use the word 'hard' in my definition, but we make the skip, hop and jump to "teachers are lazy and terrible" when I said nothing of the sort? Next poll question: Is teaching a challenging job? My answer: Yes! Of course it is. Most jobs are challenging. I own a small business, I manage expectations, people, salaries, unexpected diversions, supply chain logistics, regulators, the odd creepy individual, retirement plans, terminations, hiring, facility management, and pressure for production. My job is challenging, but I wouldn't describe it as hard. Maybe that's just an attitudinal thing. I had to come back and edit my response here because with regards to the spirit of the original post, I got off track and should have stayed on track. Kudos to @SoTier for pointing that out. I'm not all that complicated. I read the proposal. I noted the plan with respect to infrastructure and things like air conditioning (I'm not anti-air conditioning, plumbing, roofing or security for our children btw) , and noted the line item of $9,000,000 just in case. When I read the part where they indicated "If we don't need it, trust us we'll just spend it" I came to the conclusion it was a slush fund. My assumption was that since we were dealing with professionals and budget referendums, the $34,000,000 quite righteously included projections for cost overruns and unforeseen events, so the actual need was probably 10% less than the ask. I understand that. So, actual cost $30m, with cushion $34m. Slush fund $9m. Too much. Then again, when my house was built and the agreed on price was $255,000, I probably would not have even blinked had the builder told to give him $320,000 just in case. I'd have just given it to him so he didn't call me cynical. Yup--drug cartel. That's obviously what I was thinking. I actually confronted a teacher from the middle school, but did so in the aforementioned rational and reasonable approach. "Hey Mrs. Smith. You teach math. I saw the $9m the admin is shaking us down for. You're setting up a meth lab in the catacombs below the gym, right?". She didn't answer, honestly she looked a bit concerned and my wife was like "No cartel talk in church!". Bonus to employees on a budget referendum for building and facilities would be bad for the same reason hidden and deceptive bonuses are bad in other industries. The appearance of impropriety is obvious. It is perfectly understandable that you would see 'choice' with respect to cost and choice of schools as a silly argument. You're a beneficiary of the system, and I'd likely think it a silly argument if I was in your shoes. I already indicated what might constitute a hard job, Transpy. I'll add a few others. Nurse. Trauma nurse/doctor. Commercial fisherperson. Farmer. Corrections officer. Police officer. Bomb squad bomb dude. Fireman. I'm not sure why you see my comment as at all outrageous or offensive? A small percentage of individuals can do a job well, but that doesn't make the job innately hard as I see it. Based on your criteria, btw, I'd have been an exceptional teacher. I don't think you're confused...I think you're being argumentative. I think that mostly because, as I mentioned previously, you wrote several paragraphs about the same subject when a simple "Yes, being a teacher is hard!" or "Not hard, but challenging!" would have sufficed. By the way, I never said the UPS gig was the only hard job in the world--and just in case you think my secondary list is all-inclusive, for the record it is not.

Interestingly, there are no mandatory q restrictions when folks from adjoining states travel into/out of NY. So, guy from Danbury heads to Fla, parties with Will in Miami, flies back home. Guy from upstate flies direct, stays put in a private residence, largely avoids crowds but does dine at an outdoor establishment , distanced & masked a night or two. Three days before returning home, he dutifully goes to a Walgreens, waits his turn for a nasal swab, performs the function and returns to vacation. He too flies back home, along the way learning he’s COVID free. The next day, the guy from Danbury drives into NY, stops at a deli and grabs a bac/egg and cheese, pumps gas, heads to work, eats lunch out at a restauranr, hits the local Walmart and heads home. The Upstate guy is handled differently. He’s tracked like a flight risk, harassed with texts that make no sense and appear to be spam, he quarantines for 4 long days, drives to a local college and has a baton shoved up his nose and two days later finds out he’s not a super spreader. He returns to work. My theory is that NYC residents and those from surrounding areas looked at the bs surrounding our gov regulation and said “F$&@ this”.