Re: Healy announces freezing of salaries
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
The CPI is negative this year. There would be no salary increase, so a freeze does nothing.
Posted on: 2009/8/12 16:58
|
|||
|
Re: Healy's had 2 removals of skin cancer
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
One other thought- I know everyone's googled pictures of "problem" moles and crap. I went in there with an expectation of what he might not like, some stuff that once I started thinking about it I thought might be a problem.
Turns out everything that looked to me that it might be a little squirrely turned out to be nothing. The stuff that made him say, "Hmm, I'm going to do a biopsy on this" looked like NOTHING to me. Maybe just a little skin discoloration. I would never look at it and say, "That's something I need to ask him about". His feeling as a doctor was simply this: The emphasis and awareness that the public has that certain things can be "bad" is a double edged sword- Yes, people are looking more carefully at themselves, but they're also getting conditioned to see only certain things- bigger than a pencil eraser, growing fast, irregular borders, bleeds sometimes- when the reality is melanoma and other skin cancers can look like alot of things and are often much more subtle than a big honkin' mole. I don't believe in scaring people into doing things, but this is one area where I've become somewhat fanatical, just because I always did take reasonable care to keep an eye on things, and the reality is even with my vigilance & "knowledge", I was utterly clueless and wouldn't know a cancerous piece of skin if it was right between my eyes.
Posted on: 2009/8/6 17:39
|
|||
|
Re: Healy's had 2 removals of skin cancer
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Public service announcement: If you don't go to a dermo for a screening, you're asking for trouble.
I never thought I'd have any problem, being darker skinned. I'm relatively young. I've had several things the dermo didn't like taken off of me. It's painless. It takes almost no time. I only bring up my situation to illustrate the point- I'm pretty stupid, overall, and would have never gone to the dermo unless i had a conversation with someone who just went berzerk and insisted that I go- maybe it would have been fine, or maybe I would have been really sorry 15-20 years from now. I'll never know, because all that crap is gone now & I get screened every year or so. Just go. Skin cancer is so simple to deal with if you catch it early- it's almost a non-event. If you don't catch it early, there is absolutely nothing they can do for you. Pretty steep run up on the old "how big a deal is this" curve. Goes from "not really a big deal" to "the biggest deal of your life" fast.
Posted on: 2009/8/6 16:06
|
|||
|
Re: 4th st & Monmouth (Good Area in Downtown?)
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
You will be fine. Just don't look for trouble & it won't find you.
In fact, chances are even if you do look for it, it still won't find you.
Posted on: 2009/7/27 19:35
|
|||
|
Re: Several local politicians arrested on corruption charges
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
this is a fantastic idea.
Posted on: 2009/7/25 14:01
|
|||
|
Re: Several local politicians arrested on corruption charges
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Nothing like a nice lazy summer morning to engage in some speculation....
Why did they pull the plug? No fear of flight, no chance of a violent crime- the cw wasn't going to get whacked- so why shut it down? They must believe healy has dirt under his nails- the actual meeting with the cw and #4 banishes ANY speculation by them that he was an innocent lamb. He is by far THE BIGGEST fish, so why shut it down? Answer: dead man walking. My guess is they know who is going to squeal and already are working a deal. In fact, I imagine that they had this locked up far before the arrests were made. Say what you want about the political timing, whatever- this is a career maker for those agents and for the us attnys involved. There is NO WAY they left the biggest chip laying on the table. To wit: as I mentioned earlier in the thread, if you use several of the reports in a vacuum, like good little followers of the canon of ethics, the names of the uncharged are hidden. However, cross referencing between docs, it's obvious who is who. You think that was an accident? Helllllll no. Those guys knew exactly what they were doing. They truly do not believe he's clean. If they thought he was, they would say so. So again, would they ever, ever take a chance on losing him? That question answers itself.
Posted on: 2009/7/25 13:48
|
|||
|
Re: Five Wounded in Jersey City Shooting - Bergen and Claremont
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Mmmmm you think government is focused on these issues? I have a sneaking suspicion that this shooting will be discussed about 95% less than some issues hitting closer to home for some individuals.
We're screwed.
Posted on: 2009/7/25 13:25
|
|||
|
Re: Five Wounded in Jersey City Shooting - Greenville: Bergen and Claremont
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Long summer. Long not so hot summer. Summer of jc's discontent. Call it whatever you can come up with, but this is one f'd up season. We're well past the level of nuttiness of whatever year we had the bicycle bandit. What was that 04? That was a wild summer. This one crushes that one.
Posted on: 2009/7/25 13:02
|
|||
|
Re: Several local politicians arrested on corruption charges
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Not to pile on, but this is exactly the wrong way of looking at it. It's not neighbors scratching each other's backs- When they do that, it's on their own dime, through time or through $$. With businesses- well, businesses are allowed to spend their money however they like- If it's spent stupidly, they lose. With elected office, it is not THEIR money they are spending. It is not THEIR property that is being developed. It is not THEIR businesses that they are depleting the resources of. It belongs to the public. When they sell their influence, they are selling something that belongs to the people. They are giving something that is not theirs to give. That is theft, and that's why it's called corruption: The inviolable becomes violator, taking the trust the public has put into them and abusing it for their own personal gain. Totally different than the examples you give. Elected officials HAVE NOTHING TO GIVE. It isn't theirs. None of it. They are stewards of it only. The idea that they somehow "own" anything in government, that it's "theirs", is exactly the problem. Not their city positions to give, not their resources to spend, not their contracts to dole out, not their zoning to grant. Every decision, EVERY DECISION, is supposed to be made with only ONE consideration: What is best for the constituency. Of course, when you see how many people get patronage positions, that's obviously not the case. Where's the integrity?
Posted on: 2009/7/24 16:08
|
|||
|
Re: Under Sized and Under Equipped Police Force
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Uh, dude- Muzzle velocity of a 9mm (HK) is 1000-1400- probably in the upper reaches of that range out of a subgun- longer barrel & typically hotter ammo is used. Muzzle velocity of a 12g is 1200-1400, and there are 8-9 of em rather than one. I agree that the Mossberg 500 Series is hardly an "assault weapon", but seriously, getting hit "at moderate range anywhere other than certain parts of the head".... are you kidding me? Have you ever FIRED a 12 g with buckshot? What do you think a .33 caliber lead ball moving at 1100+ fps does when it hits something? I am editing out some of my post re: damage because, well. Who knows who is reading. Mossberg 500's come in an unbelievable number of configurations. This one reportedly was 7+1, not 6+1 as you suggest. Small detail. This was not a pop gun, that is for sure. I'd beg to be shot by your HK rather than the shotgun, at ANY range.
Posted on: 2009/7/23 21:28
|
|||
|
Re: Several local politicians arrested on corruption charges
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Hard to read the tea leaves. Since it's Beldini doing it, I guess that lends itself to it being him, but at the same time, this was what, Feb? Wasn't JH running away in the polls, big time, at that point? So who was the opponent that they needed to "get to know"? Was it Manzo? What site has the indictments- If you look at Manzo's and see the meetings happened AFTER Feb 12th, it doesn't tell you much, but if it is BEFORE Feb 12th, #4 probably isn't Healy, because that's the only guy I can think of that would be the "opponent" and he would have already met him- No reason for anyone to be telling him that a meeting should be arranged. If that made sense.
Posted on: 2009/7/23 20:51
|
|||
|
Re: Several local politicians arrested on corruption charges
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Back on track...
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009 ... uption_investig.html#more There's your connection. The CW is a member of the community where the laundering arrests went down- His Dad runs one of the Synagogues in Deal. So basically he knew things about alot of people & started chirping about all of em when he got busted.
Posted on: 2009/7/23 19:33
|
|||
|
Re: Several local politicians arrested on corruption charges
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
As the story goes national the big news boys are getting ahead of the locals:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534522,00.html Guess the laundering was going on down on Canal Street- fake bags to hide the proceeds of illegal kidneys? This is great stuff. Not sure how you launder $$$ selling counterfeit retail..... But I won't let that get in the way of a great story. I also note that there were 54 search warrants...Some of that I am sure is to find evidence to bolster existing charges, but 54 locations & 44 arrestees..... I'd say more to come for sure.
Posted on: 2009/7/23 18:11
|
|||
|
Re: The list
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Jeez. Just read Cammarano's indictment. If you don't want to go through the whole thing, just read the last 3 pages. Basically says that anyone who wasn't "with" him at the beginning that was competing with the guy providing the $$$$ was going to be "ground into dust".
If everything is on tape that they say is on tape, it is game over, no question about it. My God, I know this stuff goes on but it's depressing as hell to hear it being blatantly discussed.
Posted on: 2009/7/23 15:49
|
|||
|
Re: Jersey City Cops Injured; Shoot Culprit
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
http://www.thinkgeek.com/books/humor/8e6c/images/2070/
Free shipping. This will be investigated & the facts will come out, one way or another.
Posted on: 2009/7/22 14:22
|
|||
|
Re: Five Police Officers wounded in Jersey City shootout
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
I think with a little bit of reflection on the situation what the family is going through right now is pretty clear, and having said that it's better to just let things unfold themselves as the family wants.
I'd encourage anyone with "information" to keep it to themselves, particularly those claiming knowledge that is incomplete at best & completely incorrect at worst. Why people want to be the first to announce bad news I just don't know.
Posted on: 2009/7/20 18:43
|
|||
|
Re: Five Police Officers wounded in Jersey City shootout
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
All I can say is I hope Comey & Healy are there when the officers wake up and say, "Congratulations, Lieutenant, enjoy your retirement".
I am sure it's not the proper proceedure to promote someone and let them immediately retire, but if that's what these officers want to do, I for one won't make a peep. They've done enough.
Posted on: 2009/7/17 13:33
|
|||
|
Re: Crime is Down, but 4 Cops Shot on Bergen
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Hassan has been busy.
http://www.wolo.com/index.php?option= ... d=43:local-news&Itemid=50 wanted for robbery in SC http://www.websupp.org/data/DNJ/3:06-cv-04952-2-DNJ.pdf prior to that suing Essex County for being mean to him while he was in jail.
Posted on: 2009/7/16 20:07
|
|||
|
Re: Crime is Down, but 4 Cops Shot on Bergen
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Folks, if you do have information on what's going on with these officers, might I suggest you keep it to yourself- The people who need to know are family members & friends- I appreciate that there may be some direct info, but this sounds like just rumors to me- So unless you know first hand, some discretion- You have no idea whose kid may be reading this from school or something.
Posted on: 2009/7/16 16:50
|
|||
|
Re: Crime is Down, but 4 Cops Shot on Bergen
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Probably not the right thread to be having this conversation, but I agree with Ian. Artificially restricting the pool of qualified applicants can only insure that you're going to end up with a lower quality organization. If you attach some sort of importance to being "part of the community", which I frankly think is dubious at best, so be it, but that intangible doesn't have a chance against the tangible (at the very least higher civil service scoring applicants, higher level of physical fitness, etc). I'm not sure what's being suggested here- that officers when hired have to live in the city or that officers have to live here their entire career. I can assure you that in the case of the latter, Jersey City's loss would be some suburban police department's gain- As a cop gets older, has a family, & looks perhaps to get his kid a yard if that's important to him, you're going to lose all his experience & knowledge- which is of no small value. Cops are human beings with families & lives. This is a career for them. For some it is also a labor of love, but to pretend that they somehow owe anything beyond their duty is ludicrous. That some do contribute something more is laudable. Think about the guys who went in on the entry team this morning. They got shot to pieces, with one guy's heart stopping on the way to the hospital. "A pension & a paycheck". Really? I think alot of people, myself included, would have called out on a day like today- These guys volunteer to be on that squad. Do they get some sort of pay for it? Does it help their career? I'm sure it does. But you can't volunteer for that job based on a rational analysis of the cost/benefit- the potential cost is massive. Just a pension and a paycheck vs. a shotgun blast to the face? I'd say they have something invested in humanity, possibly taking that shotgun blast from some scumbag so that the rest of us don't have to. So why do they do it? Lots of reasons, and most of them say good things about them, wherever they lay their head at night. There are some petrified wives, husbands and children this morning- many of them don't live in Jersey City either.
Posted on: 2009/7/16 16:10
|
|||
|
Re: Are you allowed to BeeKeep in the city?
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Holy Mackrel, it's been a while since I looked into beekeeping & decided it wouldn't work here, but apparently in the intrim there's been an urban explosion of bee keepers all over the country & the world, proving me very, very wrong. Check it out:
http://article.wn.com/view/2009/06/22 ... ybees_make_sweetest_pets/ Tokyo to Pittsburg to NYC to JC... Looks like we'll be seeing more of this rather than less as time goes on.
Posted on: 2009/7/7 14:16
|
|||
|
Re: Are you allowed to BeeKeep in the city?
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
I added some info on the smokers in the above post- Like anything else, they're safe if used properly, but some people....... :)
If it's literally hundreds of bees in your back yard I would look at that as a problem. As the one article mentions, if you're an urban bee keeper you need to be on top of where the girls are going. Sounds like this guy got the part about making sure the hive is above "head level" so it's not in people's faces, but it seems like your back yard is the best suited "commute" for the ladies to get to work. Maybe give it a few weeks and see if they expand their territory, or move on once the seasonality of your particular garden slows the blooming, making it less attractive?
Posted on: 2009/7/7 13:48
|
|||
|
Re: Are you allowed to BeeKeep in the city?
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
I don't know that you'll be able to do anything about it, since the state has from time to time actually subsidized bee keeping in New Jersey because of a shortage of professional bee keepers:
http://www.state.nj.us/agriculture/ne ... approved/press060214.html I absolutely empathize with you on this- I personally would only keep em in the 'burbs. I used to be pretty freaked out by bees until some family members began bee keeping- It's amazing how docile they really are. Yellow Jackets are a whole different story (they're communal wasps) and those are the ones that would be inclined to dive-bomb your sangria...and Jersey City has no shortage of them. But the chances of you getting stung by a honey bee is exceedingly low unless you happen to grab or sit on one (and it's more of a "terribly sorry, but you're crushing me" type situation than a "you die now" situation you'll get from yellow jackets). Now it makes me happy to see the little suckers working the plants outside my place. They really, really won't bother you. Having said that, if you're upset about it you of course should talk to your neighbor or, if that's no help, the city. If you have an allergy to them, of course, it's a much bigger deal, even if the chances of a sting are very low. The only other concern I'd have is that the bee keeper wasn't properly maintaining the hive & it was attracting other pests. Here's another story you may find interesting: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20080 ... ng-is-the-latest-buzz.htm Regarding the smoker he's using (or should be using) there should be absolutely no flame, as the fuel only smolders- the better to generate a good amount of smoke. They don't "fumigate" in the sense that it's hurting the bees- The smoke calms em down so you can get in the hive (they will sting if you muck around in their house). I suppose it's a possible fire hazard, but probably less so than a candle or certainly a tiki torch.
Posted on: 2009/7/7 13:39
|
|||
|
Re: Accident on 8th and Monmouth
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
See? Not drunk!
Posted on: 2009/7/7 12:25
|
|||
|
Re: Accident on 8th and Monmouth
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
As was mentioned earlier, that's a brutal intersection. I'd not be so quick to jump on the guy that ran into that fence (again....at least the 3rd time that's happened in 2 years).
That corner is tough because there is almost always a car parked on the corner on the east side, obstructing the view of traffic heading down Monmouth. It almost always seems to be an SUV, and it's almost always right up to the intersection. Folks coming up 8th have to creep-creep-creep out to see if there is any oncoming traffic. It wouldn't surprise me if there was a car doing just that, which spooked the driver heading down monmouth, who jerked the wheel left. You have to be pretty bombed to just drive off the road like that. In past accidents at that spot, there's always been another car involved. Not surprising that witnesses said he was speeding, but I bet a car looking to cross Monmouth was a factor. The last several I've seen were almost the exact same result, except they included a car blowing the sign on Monmouth completely and ending up quite involved indeed. If there is a "solution" that involves municipal authorities, the most obvious one to try is enforcing rules regarding parking within so many feet of an intersection, especially vans or SUV's with tinted windows. The same situation exists coming the other way on Brunswick, and also at the corner of Jersey & 8th. Hit-hard & hope.
Posted on: 2009/7/6 15:30
|
|||
|
Re: Florist Recommendations
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
+1 for 1st and Jersey. Nice people, good quality flowers.
Posted on: 2009/7/1 19:17
|
|||
|
Re: PARKING: Jersey City might refund drivers for 'illegal booting'
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I don't think yours are off the wall either- but this was an injustice, and we're only counting the $$$$ cost- who knows how many people missed work, missed appointments, weddings, funerals, whatever, because they had to wait around for someone to come on out and remove a boot from their car that should have never been there. It's bad enough if it's a private business doing this, but this is government, which has the power to do alot more to you than a private business does and of whom we have a reasonable expectation to be even-handed & not motivated by $$$$$. If it had been a private business extorting, even accidentally, JC residents & visitors for $660 a day I think people would be more pissed off, even though I think government doing it personally is way worse. For perspective- You've got 240k folks in JC. Let's assume half of em have cars, which is probably on the high side (kids, folks that take public transportation). With 9000+ apparently illegal boots over the last 5 years, that's about 7.5% of the driving population (assuming each boot went to someone never booted before). So while 5 a day doesn't seem like much, it hit a pretty good slice of our neighbors. If the town can't track it, fine- That surprises me, but OK. It's the answer of, "It would be too hard for us to pay it back" that gets me a bit, and as I mentioned earlier, I think once folks on the council think about it a bit they'll probably change their minds. Subtracting $1,000,000 from the town's assets right now probably gives them heart palpitations, particularly in this environment so I don't fault the initial reaction, but at some point I think they'll figure out what the right thing is.
Posted on: 2009/6/29 18:56
|
|||
|
Re: I Made the Streets of JC a Bit Safer
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Not sure I follow you. A sworn officer can detain for any number of reasons, not all of which are predicated by a violation by the detainee. A private citizen, in the state of NJ, can only do so if they witness a felony. DWI is not a felony, nor is it a misdemeanor, residing instead in Title 39, which is Jersey's Motor Vehicle code. A cop, for example, can detain you briefly as a witness to a crime. They can also detain you based on the statement of someone attesting to your commission of a crime without witnessing it themselves. They're sworn, and as such are acting directly as agents of the State, and therefore have both a higher degree of authority & a higher degree of liability if things go wrong. In regards to my "disturbed" comment, perhaps I wasn't clear enough- I wasn't disturbed by the JCPD's handling of the situation- I was disturbed by the fact that they found nothing to justify criminally detaining the guy, in light of the fact that a private citizen did so. That would seem to suggest that the detention, from a legal standpoint, was unlawful, even if detention by private citizens in the case of MV violations were legal in NJ, which as I mentioned they're not. Arrest & detainment are the same thing- You don't have freedom for that period of time. In one case you're probably in cuffs and on the way to being formally charged, in the other you may or may not be, but you are without question "arrested" in the truest sense of the word regardless of the outcome. Anyway, I'm glad it worked out, glad Tommy did what he did, and hope it doesn't cause him problems.
Posted on: 2009/6/29 18:33
|
|||
|
Re: PARKING: Jersey City might refund drivers for 'illegal booting'
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Gary, I can certainly agree with you that the $$$ will come out of the pockets of JC residents- but that's as it should be. If the cost of living in JC as it pertains to cost of government is a problem, the citizens of the city can make their own determination as to whether or not they're willing to pay for things as they are or ask their elected officials to head in another direction. We shouldn't be balancing a budget through extortion and seizure of property, which is what a policy of "booting first" is...you won't get the use of your car until you pay up- Not just Jersey City but probably the private contractor who works the program (does JCPA do the actual booting themselves? I honestly don't know). For a scofflaw who decides to jerk the town around, ignore tickets & court notices, and generally flips off the rules the rest of us play by, they most certainly deserve a boot, because they've proven that they cannot be counted on to discharge to their civil obligations. The only way to get their attention is to immobilize their ride. A million dollars is alot of money. At a million bucks, we're talking about $110 ($152 boot cost - $42 ticket cost) each time. That's 9,090 booted cars over the 5 years, or 1818 a year.... 5 a day. That's pretty rough. That's alot of people who got violated, intentionally or unintentionally.
Posted on: 2009/6/29 18:18
|
|||
|