 Messages |
Topics |
Attachments
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - mirjo
16
« on: July 05, 2015, 03:04:41 PM »
I get that. It's just face value dumb-old-movie-3-stooges-like-funny, that made me laugh when I saw it.
17
« on: June 29, 2015, 11:07:08 AM »
The obvoius stupidity of the perpetrators aside, does anyone else see the humor in this: At the scene, crews said they needed to test to determine what kind of oil it is but believe it is waste oil. And then the photo below shows a barrel with the words: "waste oil" spray painted on it. 
18
« on: May 13, 2015, 01:26:14 AM »
Someone please clarify for me why the school will be penalized for subs working over 30hrs? Even if the ACA states health insurance must be offered by the employer, the employee can decline. Change for the no reason other than to make a change is not often a great idea and the improvements garnered are often little or none. Microsoft never really improved much beyond its Windows 98 OS, yet moves people to a new OS every few years Paying a middle man is not about saving it's about convenience.
19
« on: May 10, 2015, 07:53:40 AM »
Is this the same Joan Nye who is/was a teacher at Georgia Elm & Middle School?
20
« on: April 15, 2015, 12:18:45 PM »
I realize I am coming off as a sympathizer for this guy and that's really not the intent. I think it's a crime to set him free if the state feels he hasn't been rehabilitated, but for some reason can't make their own law retro active. Putting this man on the street with no resources (or any released felon for that matter) and loading the headlines with all the key-terms: homeless, high risk, etc is just asking for failure and trouble. If there is a chance that he wants to make ammends, he doesn't stand a chance. Odds are that's not the case, but I don't see the rationale in the state flopping people out if they aren't ready to go. They can do whatever they want.
The fact it was reported to the authorities that he wasn't in compliance or whatever, but it was later discovered he was--but for the suspended license--kind of makes my point here. He has been set-up to fail whether he would or not. The general population already hates this man and he will never stand a chance--ever. What incentive is there to try?
Unfortunately, these people can't be castrated because it's considered in humane & it's too much of a slippery slope with inoccent people being convicted. However, it seems there should be something in these situations, when there is no doubt some one is guilty, before released back to the general population...
21
« on: April 13, 2015, 12:22:10 PM »
So what you're saying kpplus2 is: if someone has committed a crime, that's it. No redemption, ever? Or does that only apply to certain people/certain crimes? Just curious, because I know a lot of people who view everything in black & white terms, when it's usually many shades of grey and by no means simple. Yes, his crime was heinous and there is no doubt his victim and her family suffered for it and I'm not diminishing that at all, but after 23 yrs, I'm sure they've reconciled the situation. He was punished, served his sentence and now is attempting to move forward. As a community, we can only hope he has reflected on his crime in that time.
He was driving with a suspended license after being released from prison from a 23 year sentence. I'm certainly not condoning this man's crimes; however, releasing someone after a lifetime behind bars, w/o some kind of "re-entry" program or assistance is really just a set up for failure. Especially since this guy is now middle-aged and was only in his 20s when he went to prison. He's learned zero life skills except how to survive in prison, but the expectation is for him to function on the outside. Who knows if he has any family available or willing to help him. Chances are good he does not.
What's the rest of the story here? Driving erratically in what way? Was he really? Or did he go too far over way or the other and turn his wheel back (as we've all done, surely) He wasn't cited for DUI, and given the statement of the cop, I'm really questioning the relevance of the erratic driving. The fact that he has a suspended license after just being released from prison...is something the state should help take care of upon release--in some manner or other. Not a hand out, but something to get people going on the right track. Maybe he was driving erratically, because he hasn't driven in 23 years and needs a refresher--there's one thing the state could do --in exchange for work. People want to be productive, it's a false notion assuming otherwise.
While I'm not a sympathizer of violent crimes, I do wonder why it is that these people are more often than not repeat offenders. I doubt rehab in jail has anything to do with it. And more likely it's the fact that that environment is more familiar, easier to deal with than the outside after a long period of time--and when you get out, you're treated like a pariah anyway, before you've had a chance to prove you're on the right track, if you're inclined to do so. The easiest route back is to re-offend.
Not everyone wants to change, but I do believe there would be less people going back to prison if thing were different when they are released--and different while they're there. The whole concept seems to make matters worse, not better. I don't know what to do with violent criminals, but locking them up in pens together for long periods of time and expecting good outcomes after years of whatever goes on (if you believe Hollywood, sex & violence), seems foolish.
I think the press should leave this man alone. If it were me being released after spending most of my adult life in prison (deservedly so) and I have turned a page and want to begin a new life and am willing to do what it takes to get over those mistakes from the past--what do you think those headlines do to me when I see I'm expected to re-offend? It tells me I'm not going to be given a chance no matter what I do, because the seed has been planted that I'm expected to commit another crime. So I know up front that everything I attempt--the door will be slammed before it's even opened. Then I'm picked up by the police and I haven't had a chance to renew my license yet. WTH. It's enough to make me want to give up before I even tried. Just saying.
I don't know if I really need to know when a sex offender is being released and moving to my neighborhood--I think that just causes undue upset & panic in people for no reason and doesn't give the person a fighting chance. There is a sex offender registry list for that info. And just because this guy didn't complete therapy in jail or whatever, doesn't mean squat. Maybe he started doing it and realized it was just a lot of BS and stopped. Do we really know? Absolutely not.
While the press does have a duty to inform the public, it doesn't have a duty to sensationalize, which it does, all the time. Sadly, that's what sells. We the public eat it up, so they, the press just produce more of it. And we the public tsk tsk at the spectre of it, but don't stop consuming! We are truly our own worst enemy.
The bottom line is you can't just take what you read/see on the news at face value, because it's often not the whole story. The only truth we know is Richard Laws is a sex offender, who has completed his prison sentence, and was driving with a suspended license, which it of course would be after 23 years of not being renewed and his only being released sometime on Thursday.
To get an official license now, you have to have a birth cert/and proof of residence in the form of utility bills or something sent to your physical address, otherwise you're only issued a driving pass or some dumb thing, but you won't be able to fly or get into government buildings with it, because it's not official, it just allows you to drive. But after 23 years--maybe a driving test is required?
22
« on: April 11, 2015, 11:38:32 PM »
Everyone talks about creating jobs, but no one ever does. I got really tired of listening to Speaker Boehner go on & on a few years ago about "The job creators," when he knew damn well he was full of ****. If tax cuts were going to create jobs, we wouldn't have landed in a deep deep recession with job cuts all over the place.
Vermont does need to create jobs, but I like and respect the fact it doesn't just bulldoze everything over to that end. I think it would be a crappy place to live, if that were the case.
I happen to like Bernie Sanders, I think he is likely one of the only members of congress truly interested in the American People, but I can't listen to the speech anymore, it's the same over and over, but nothing gets done. Yes, we need to create more jobs and do all those things--inspire someone to just do it. Everything is falling apart, as you said msm, not just here, but all over. I think that's a lot of why Katrina was so devastating to New Orleans--didn't the levee break? And maybe wouldn't have if it had been in better shape. (??) As the weather gets more severe, more flooding, tornadoes etc a lot more damage to come. A lot of history will be lost, I expect in the years ahead.
There is too much greed. Corporations are far more interested in increasing the bottom line than retaining employees or even hiring good ones. Our disposable society has filtered down to the worker--if you don't like your job there is another dozen behind you who will accept what we're offering. The training is minimal, new employees are expected to become proficient quickly and at the speed of long time employees before it's reasonable, and if they aren't, then in some employment situations they're "punished" by having their hours cut. Hours go up if productivity does--this is to get an unfavorable employee to quit. These are shady practices for crappy low paying jobs. Who wins? There is a lot of turn over and a lot of people who don't care about their job or what they're doing. I would think it would cost less to invest the time in the right people and pay them decently. But that would cut in to profits.
23
« on: April 11, 2015, 10:51:53 PM »
We should all have an interest in "saving a loon" or "saving a tree" since extinction of one species does not bode well for another; however the entire concept of carbon taxes in relation to environmental issues is simply stupid. Here and on the national level with the carbon footprint whatever crap tax theoretically imposed on companies. They don't pollute less, they have deep pockets and just pay the fines. They don't care. This proposed idea is just as dumb. Not the need to raise the money, but the manner of doing it. It also seems pretty damn high.
kpplus2 you are clearly disgruntled with paying taxes and government here, but I wonder how you propose things get paid for, if not by some form of tax? What is an alternate solution? Many of these taxes I disagree with; however, revenue is necessary to fund the government and the only way to do that is through taxes. You've alluded to funds not being managed properly, while this is definitely a possibility, is it really true? A lot of money was spent on things that were unanticipated in the past few years, like Irene and Sandy and all that damage. It had to come from somewhere.
I think there has to be a better way than to knock people back down when they've just gotten some relief from high fuel prices. Fuels of any sort should be off limit for taxes here, simply because of the necessity of their use for people (which is what makes it attractive in the first place) But it's not really fair. Especially, not that high. The state could st up a toll on I89 between Highgate Springs and Burlington and make a bunch of $ from the Canadians who come across the border all year to shop in St. Albans, Essex, Williston, and Burlington. It's an up front expense, but doesn't need to be elaborate.
24
« on: April 11, 2015, 09:11:58 PM »
i think there are a number of people in the community who dislike the current SI, but feel they have no control over what happens at the SU. The information re: the Addison SU would likely be of interest, but it would take a dedicated person to see what kind of interest there is and getting people on board. It can be difficult to rally people for anything--even if they want it to happen.
25
« on: April 09, 2015, 07:38:32 PM »
It's likely the logistics have not been thought out/considered/ are a work in progress and will change continually as this progresses; however, the reality is and has been that we can't continue to dump everything and anything in the same way we always have. We've had recycling in Fairfax for over 25 years and still there is less than 100% compliance.  I don't get that. Initially (late 80s-90s) it was a real pain because everything had to be fixed just so in the bin, cans/plastic had to be flattened, everything had to be separated in paper bags, milk jugs had to be flattened & tied together by the handles then put on top of everything. The only thing loose allowed in the bin was glass. Eventually it went to zero sort, but I think people were so put off from the early days that they never bothered to recycle. Now it's basically mandatory. It's hard to understand why people are complaining--unless they really generate a great deal of trash and will be hit hard with extra bag fees. Getting into the habit of recycling will cut trash down a lot--as with any habit, once established, it becomes second nature. As for food scraps--those can be composted for your garden or someone else's--because I agree that putting them out for pickup is a lot gross--esp if it sits in the heat for a day or so. But, I understand food scraps can be put in a methane digester to produce energy similar to cow manure--so this is likely the intended plan. It seems like a great big concern over per bag fees most people will likely not have to pay. I wonder how will this fee be assessed at condos with dumpsters?
26
« on: April 05, 2015, 09:25:08 PM »
When a price tag is attached to something, it usually gets people talking and generally changes their behavior to avoid paying--at least that's the thought process & the hope, because no one likes to pay more for anything if they don't have to--why would you? I think people who recycle will be fine and those who don't will want to start. I don't think the idea is really for people to pay to heap on the garbage--they really want everyone to recycle everything that can possibly be recycled/reused/reduced and eliminate trash entirely--though that's likely impossible, but I think it's the goal. Hopefully no animals get to your garbage tfence, there is still plenty of wildlife roaming around Fairfax--I don't think it will be the tourists going through that will care, so much as your neighbors, when it's strewn all over and smells!  (And rotting food draws flies, which lay eggs....) 
27
« on: April 05, 2015, 02:30:42 AM »
Your talking about two different things--the proposed tax on soda is a state issue not federal and has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders. I don't know if he was ever a state legislator. I only remember him as mayor of Burlington and then running for US House Rep. Then the senate. As for the soda tax--dumb idea. It's too much government over-reach to begin with and beyond that it only targets a select group--primarily teens. It's unlikely to deter anyone from drinking soda--if that's the real intent and it's just making the beverage more expensive for no reason good reason. If the state needs revenue, perhaps it needs to find a better way to utilize what it already takes in. I'm not an MBA, but it seems if you make a budget each year and you fall short in certain areas then you need to figure out why you don't have enough in those areas. I don't understand all the long term projecting with this or that will raise or save this amount over the next 10 years or whatever. How is possible to budget money that way when you have no clue what's going to happen tomorrow or in 2 hours, let alone 10 years down the road! It's no surprise governments can't function! Why not budget for the coming year like a normal person would do--something manageable? As for the feds and complaining about all the spending done there--the only complaints about spending are those that involve people in this country. Why is it ok to send a ton of $$$ to other countries for aid etc, but not ok to help our own? Why is so much $$ given to large corporations in the form of subsidies etc., when they continue to move operations/jobs/shelter income offshore keeping billions out of the coffers and screwing the American people out of jobs. But that's ok too. Large corp squeeze congress to get whatever they want (because everyone wants to be re-elected) and the little guy gets screwed, but that's ok too? I don't get it. It's only the spending for the people that's ever vilified and nothing else. Big pharma is raising prices on certain meds just because it can--not because it needs to and it's squeezing the collective cojones of congress in the process, because there is a lot of election $$ there. Who are all of these alleged non-workers I keep hearing so much about? Why are there no jobs available & who says there are no jobs available? I hear job ads all the time on the radio. I think businesses in general don't want to train people--if you've read a help wanted ad in recent years, a job seeker is expected to pretty much know the job before applying. It's pretty discouraging, not to mention the impersonal online application process designed to weed out all but those who don't throw the computer at the wall. Then there are the jokers who want a resume to apply at a pizza joint. It's a fairly hostile environment for job seekers--or was a few years ago. Perhaps it has improved. I think companies could be a bit more encouraging when they're looking for help. Bernie needs to focus on getting people to work. Didn't I recently hear something about a budget being voted down that included proposals to fix/rebuild infrastructure--bridges/roads etc in the US? That would have created a lot of jobs, since there is a lot of work that needs to be done and will take awhile. Who are the bozos voting this stuff down? Can't have it both ways--can't complain about folks being out of work and vote down a budget that would put them to work.
28
« on: April 04, 2015, 08:12:53 PM »
Perhaps a better legislative measure would be to have each municipality contract trash removal, such as Fairfax does, so residents aren't having to do it and therefore "illegally dumping" wouldn't ever be an issue--anywhere. People unfortunately do tend to react with emotions rather than with thought. I believe there is only one dump site left in the state and it's filling rapidly. Act 148 is designed to vastly reduce the amount of trash people throw out and get them to recycle instead--a pain to change habits, for sure, but certainly not a stupid concept. Recycling can reduce the amount of trash going out considerably. Coming up is mandatory composting--everyone will be expected to recycle food scraps and lawn clippings/leaves/etc. Larger restaurants started last year, the next level this year and so on. I think household scraps are due to take affect in 2017. The goal is to recycle as much as possible to keep a little as possible from going into the landfill. Burning trash (for those so inclined) is toxic. There are any number of chemicals in the plastic & containers food etc comes in that are released when burned. Such behavior demonstrates a childish, ignorant mindset.
29
« on: March 07, 2015, 11:45:31 AM »
Many things are made an issue that do not need to be one. Issues/problems validate people. I always thought this was common knowledge.
30
« on: March 05, 2015, 07:44:48 AM »
A kiind and thoughtful man. he will be missed by all who knew him.
|
Show Posts
