Jump to content

Menu

HeartString

Members
  • Posts

    928
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by HeartString

  1. 21 minutes ago, wendyroo said:

    I live in a big ToT neighborhood. We give out at least 300 pieces of candy a year, and many more in the weather is nice.

    A lot of that goes to families that don't actually live in our subdivision, but drive in for the occasion. I have no problem with that, as long as they park and walk door to door. What I can't stand is parents driving slowly along the road keeping pace with a child walking house to house. Or kids jumping out of cars, running up to houses to ToT, and then jumping back into the cars to get driven to the next promising group of houses with porch lights on. I mean, jeeze, we are a tightly packed suburban subdivision - just walk the 50 feet to the next driveway! I don't mind adding people (strollers/wagons) to the sidewalks, but I hate adding cars to the streets when scads of hyper kids are out and about in the dark.

    So I would say find a good ToT neighborhood for your kids, but be considerate. Find out what their trick or treat hours are - this year ours are from 6 to 8 on Saturday. And don't unnecessarily drive through the whole neighborhood - just get to the edge of the good ToTing area, park and walk from there. 

    We always park and walk.  Cars driving around during TOT is dangerous.   Besides being dangerous it’s no fun.  Walking from house to house is most of the fun!  

    • Like 4
  2. My college in AR wasn’t as explicit about it but had similar rules.  I kind of wish it had been spelled out like that, I ended up on academic probation one semester for dropping too many classes and I hadn’t realized it was a thing.  
     

    Except the 30 hour rule, that seems weird. 

  3. To answer the question of where exactly we go…when we lived in my home town we went to a close neighborhood that was easy to access and always had a lot of families participating.  
     

    Since we’re in a brand new town this year I asked on Facebook because I don’t want to drive around all night randomly and don’t want to end up with sad, disappointed children if I can’t find anywhere to go.    
     

    I guess this thread has me rethinking that.  Maybe we’ll just do something at home.  I’d hate to be an “invader” that the homeowners will complain about.  My kids will be disappointed but 🤷‍♀️.  I can’t actually force my own neighbors to participate.  

  4. We’ve never lived in neighborhoods where the neighbors handed out candy so we always go to a nearby neighborhood. I’m sure that bothers some people but the alternative is my kids miss trick or treating because of where we live.  When I say no one hands out candy I mean quiet literally not one single house, not just “a bad haul”.  The “haul” has never been the point, participant in a cultural activity is.  The attitude that kids should just miss out if the live somewhere with neighbors who don’t participate is kind of gross.  

    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1
  5. 10 hours ago, LuvToRead said:

    My library system uses a platform that doesn't support Kindle e-readers so I have a membership to the Brooklyn New York public library.  It's $50 a year and they utilize Overdrive.  I used to have a card from Fairfax VA but switched to Brooklyn.  I can't remember why I switched but I have been happy with both.

    Wait…you can live anywhere and do that?  Not just a neighboring town?  🤯

  6. On 10/16/2021 at 7:20 PM, Frances said:

    And in my state, they are very involved in funding people running for school boards, although they often try to hide it by creating new PACs to funnel the money. In many areas their PACs are the largest contributors to candidates. I mean what the heck does being being anti-abortion have to do with school boards? And not surprisingly, their candidates are now the same ones opposing mask and vaccine mandates and many are also involved with the anti-CRT rhetoric.

    Controlling the school board controls the Sex Ed curriculum. 

  7. 8 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

    Also, the people claiming that the government (which government?) doesn't have a part in this are forgetting that the premiums paid for health insurance offered by an employer is tax deductible. That, in essence, makes them a kind of government benefit. This was the root of challenging state laws forbidding same sex marriage. 

    So the government is involved whether we like it or not. Just about everyone agrees that we need to find a way to divorce employment and healthcare but that's not changing for now. 

    There are all kinds of government laws about insurance, e.g. what must be covered, etc. Those rules that govern when you can enroll or add people to your insurance, e.g. "life event" - they come from IRS regulations. 

    Am I right in thinking the government is covering the cost for all the COVID hospitalizations right now too? 

  8. 33 minutes ago, SKL said:

    Yes, the choice of birth control options should be between a person and his/her doctor, so where do we get the idea that the employer has to pay for whatever it is?

    I've never had a healthcare plan that covered everything I ever wanted to do that I could arguably call a health care decision.  It has never been up to me and my doctor to decide what my insurance will pay for.

    And this is not logically related to the Covid discussion.

    It is because of the way the court ruled in that case.  In Hobby Lobby the right of the company to dictate what birth control options where covered by the insurance company was on a religious ground.  In recent years the Supreme Court has granted business entities religious freedoms and freedom of speech, expanding the rights of a business.  In a world where a business entity is viewed to have religious and speech rights, it only follows that a business also has the freedom to require employees to have vaccines.  Businesses have been given a lot of freedom to do what they want.  Some people have been very happy with the expansion of those freedoms, but are now upset about the vaccine requirements which seems to be very similar to the other freedoms.  

    I actually don’t think the connection is difficult to see.  

    • Like 4
  9. 5 minutes ago, SKL said:

    Not what birth control options are allowed.  What birth control options the employer will pay for.  Big difference.

    Are allowed to be covered by the employer sponsored insurance plan.  
     

    Isnt part of requiring the vaccine in the businesses interest because it reduces the potential that the employer will have to pay for a COVID hospitalization?   Doesn’t feel much different to me than employers getting to pick birth control options.  Shouldn’t the choice of birth control options be between a person and their doctor, the same as people are arguing for with the Covid vaccine?  
     

     

    I would LOVE for health insurance and employment to be disentangled somehow, but we aren’t there yet.  

    • Like 6
  10. 2 minutes ago, RootAnn said:

    And accepting more of the same is the right thing to do?

    So, China restricts the rights of the citizens of Hong Kong and they should just throw up their hands & say, "What's one more violation of our sovereignty?" when the next order comes down? Really? 

    I think we are well past the slippery slope. There will be no one to speak up for me if I don't speak up now against federal government over reach. This is one more, "well, you accepted ... so why are you complaining about [...]?"

    I’m all for changing these things.  Stronger worker protections for example.  But we are where we are.  I see that most people that are against businesses requiring vaccines have a strong overlap with people that want businesses to be allowed to require drug tests and to be allowed to choose what birth control options are allowed to its employees and support a business right not to serve groups they don’t like.  

    • Like 6
  11. 1 minute ago, whitestavern said:

    2 separate mandates.  One is for federal employees from their employer, the federal government.  One is a mandate put on private businesses of over 100 employees by the federal government.  

    • Like 6
    • Thanks 1
  12. 5 minutes ago, SKL said:

    OK so for those who think a mandate is the way to go, why should it apply only to employees of large employers?  A pretty large % of unvaccinated adults fall outside of that mandate.

    It’s pretty typical for government mandates to apply to employers with a certain number of employees.  FMLA only applies to businesses with 50 employees.  The rationale is to avoid burdening small businesses.  It’s an attempt at balancing competing interests.  
     

     

    I’m actually not convinced that mandates are the best way. 

    • Like 4
  13. 20 minutes ago, SKL said:

    I'm very aware that testing is an option under the government mandate (theoretically at least).  However, I would still call that a medical procedure, especially if it's one of the more invasive tests (nobody knows the details yet).  And we also don't know how difficult it is going to be to get this testing done.  I had a hard enough time getting my kid tested about a month ago, when there wasn't a requirement for numerous unsymptomatic adults to get tested weekly.  Someone needs to put a lot of thought into how this is going to be done on a massive scale without keeping employees out of work.

    The federal mandate doesn’t start until Nov 9, so anyone losing a job right now is from a policy of a specific business.  I may or may not agree with all of it, but this is a natural progression towards stronger business rights.  If businesses have free speech rights and the religious rights to say….decide who to bake a cake for… both recent Supreme Court rulings, then it seems to naturally follow that a business also has freedom of association and can choose to employee who they wish, for whatever reason they wish.  Which, in Right to Work states is indeed the case.  
     

    In a world with no Citizens United, no Masterpiece Cake Shop and stronger worker protections these mandates might not be feasible.  But we are where we are. 

    • Like 9
    • Thanks 2
  14. 1 minute ago, wathe said:

    I don't think that's true everywhere.  

    My employer place of work requires vaccination or a medical or religious exemption.   There is no testing option (unless you have a medical or religious exemption - then you test.)

    Many other employers and organizations are the same.  my provincial vaccine passport system requires vaccination or formal exemption to access certain non-essential publicly accessible spaces, no testing option.

    I think there are US orgs and employers with similar requirements (hospitals?)

    The Presidential mandate is for vaccine or testing. Individual employers can do what they want, but the mandate from the government includes testing as an option.  I was referring to that.  

    • Like 6
  15. 3 minutes ago, SKL said:

    I do think employers can require certain things, though I think medical stuff is iffy due to existing privacy laws.  I'm not an expert on said medical privacy / employment laws.

    However, it's a whole other step to say the government can require private employers to require medical procedures.  Especially without regard to the actual risk scenarios.

    OSHA regs require all sorts of things.  That’s the government requiring business eases to require things of employees.  
     

    Anvinportant part frequenctly forgotten us thst the vaccine is not mandated.  It’s vaccine OR regular testing.  Regular testing is a valid option and not an imposition.  

    • Like 3
    • Confused 1
  16. 23 minutes ago, BlsdMama said:

    Peeing in a cup is external. Injecting someone against their will that carries risk is markedly different. 

    The point is that we allow employers to coerce employees all the time.  You happen to think that an employer regulating substances consumed in off hours as acceptable and requiring a vaccine not to be.  You, and most people, accept coercion from businesses in exchange for a job, income and health insurance. It’s just a matter of what you think is ok to be coerced in exchange for a job, not coercion in general.  

    • Like 5
  17. 2 hours ago, BlsdMama said:

    Choice vs Coercion - let’s not mistake one for the other.

     My husband works from home. At no point does he set foot inside the company any longer. Now, granted, he freely chose to get his vaccine immediately several months ago, but if he hadn’t, he’d be facing termination within the next six months. The “choice” to lose the ability to feed a family and losing medical care is not a choice. 

    We already accept so much of that though.  Randomized drug tests are employers enforcing rules on employees during off work time for example.  Not hiring felons leads to felons not having jobs or health care.  But we think it’s ok for an employer to have a say in who works for them so we just accept it.  

  18. I think comes down to “how” it’s done and what the family dynamic is.  My sister in law and I plan my side of the families pictures and we include everyone and do a bunch of different combinations. She wouldn’t blink if we got a generations type picture, neither would my husband, but I think that’s because spouses feel secure and welcomed and wanted.  

    • Like 2
  19. I tour situation I might tell my husband that I was willing to discuss it *after* he did some volunteer time with that age group so he could was more knowledgeable on what he was talking about.  Church, library, scouts, something more than TV representation and his own memory.  
     

    Id also want a discussion about why maturing slower has a bad thing.  Kids allowed to mature at their own pace not due to social pressure might be less likely to be complete fools at 25.  

    • Like 3
  20. I think a mission trip might actually make the disdain worse if it’s mostly directed at school.  Why in the world does the school care about hats and hair styles when people are suffering with actual problems. 

    • Like 2
  21. I’d expect fraud to be crazy right now with everything going on.  The systems have been overwhelmed during the pandemic and they had to prioritize speed over accuracy at some point. The rules for who qualifies and who doesn’t were temporarily changed during the pandemic too.  Add in hastily hired and trained personnel and you have a perfect storm for fraud.  I would guess there will be investigations and such once things settle down.  

    • Like 3
  22. 5 hours ago, Happy2BaMom said:

    I posted this in the other thread (about locking down), but thought it was relevant here as well:

    Pediatric cases in Arkansas are now 30% of all Covid cases.

    In Spokane, WA, six children are in critical care due to Covid

    Pediatric Covid-19 hospitalizations in Florida reach record highs

    AAP Study: Myocarditis risk 37 times higher for children with Covid-19

    85 pediatric patients hospitalized with Covid-19 in North Texas

    I could post more, but it's too depressing. Child deaths from Covid-19 are now also being reported in several states.

    ***********************************

    I am almost beside myself with wondering what has happened to this formerly-great-now-just-a-f*cking-dumpster-fire-of-a-country? I think back to my school years (70's & 80's) & I cannot imagine parents and community members then *not caring* about children getting severely sick and risking life-long health complications. (And if someone isn't willing to do something to keep children from catching said virus, they don't care, no matter what else they say. Ditto for politicians and elected officials who refuse to lead during this time.)

    I think it’s no coincidence that things changed significantly after the fairness doctrine expired in the late 80s.  After that we had the rise of partisan talk radio and infotainment news channels. 

     

    • Like 5
    • Thanks 1
×
×
  • Create New...