Tornado Watch Issued Until 10 PM SundayThe National Weather Service has issued tornado watch that remains in effect until 10 pm this evening for areas of western and southern Connecticut, including Newtown.The National Weather Service has issued tornado watch that remains in effect until 10 pm this evening for western and southern Connecticut, including Litchfield, Fairfield, and New Haven Counties, as well as neighboring Westchester and Putnam Counties in New York.This watch is issued by the National Weather Service when conditions are favorable for the development of tornadoes in and close to the watch area. Their size can vary depending on the weather situation.They are usually issued for a duration of 4 to 8 hours. They normally are issued well in advance of the actual occurrence of severe weather.During the watch, people should review tornado safety rules and be prepared to move to a place of safety if threatening weather approaches.Ready.gov advises residents to take the following preventative measures during a tornado watch:Turn on your TV/radio - You’ll get the latest weather updates and emergency instructions.Avoid unnecessary car trips - You don’t want to be caught outside if a tornado comes.Bring in outdoor furniture and other items that could blow away - These may become a safety hazard.Watch out for dark, rotating clouds - If you see one, take shelter immediately.
Not a criticism of you, but I am appalled you had to define "Pandora's Box". What is the state of our education system.
Good points all, and they have kept coming up since we purchased Fairfield Hills all these years ago.
What will the effect be on our municipal services. Will we need more police ? Will our all volunteer Fire Departments be able to handle the building project at completion. (Last year the Fire Chief in Brookfield spoke against a apartment project saying in part, they did not have sufficient apparatus and in the event of a major incident they could not guarantee sufficient manpower.)
What exactly is "affordable housing". I know it is a percentage of the median income. My brother lives in Stamford. A developer got around zoning by building affordable units. To qualify you can make up to $80,000 a year. Of course they are making rents at the high end of "affordable".
We need to do something with Fairfield Hills. Maybe we should have gone with a golf course or Horse facility. It is not generating any tax revenue, is taking money from the town, and those abandoned buildings, and tunnels underneath, are becomming more and more dangerous every year.
While I concur that labelling people or judging people is not helpful or right, there are some inconsistencies in what is written here.
First, for many, masks are not being pushed nor are they being worn to protect the wearer. Informed wearers understand that a primary benefit of wearing a mask is to protect those around us - to prevent the wearer for transmitting the disease to others - not to protect themselves. It is known that even asymptomatic people can spread the virus. The last paragraph in the letter acknowledges that masks trap the virus or particles or droplets that carry the virus. A main mode of disease transmission is for such droplets to reach an uninfected person. So, unless one believes that a mask is 100% transmissive - that is, it does not at all restrict the flow of particles or droplets - then there is unquestionably some level of risk reduction for people in the vicinity of the mask wearer. We can debate the degree of risk reduction, but it is certainly more than not wearing a mask at all. In making the personal choice not to wear a mask and then go to public places where one might come into contact with others, one is choosing to not to provide whatever degree of protection a mask provides to others in that public place. I am not passing judgement or labelling anyone who chooses not to wear a mask. Where it gets complicated is making that choice, thereby increasing risks for people around us. For example, should it be a personal choice for students returning to classrooms in the fall as to whether to wear a mask or not?
Standard delivery rate as of July 2020: 15.054 cents/kWh (from Eversource website, which matches my current bill)
Delivery rate from my bill 3 years ago: 9.195 cents/kWh
Distribution: 3.467 -> 6.005
Transmission: 3.16 -> 3.785
FMCC charge: 1.077-> 3.048
Public Benefit: 1.321 -> 1.621
Improvements: 0 -> 0.431
I think we could benefit from a more detailed justification for such a significant jump in the delivery rate.
A vast majority of Americans agree with the sentiment that Black Lives Matter. Conflating that sentiment with the organization of the same name (BLM) is a tactic to dismiss legitimate discussion of said organization and its policies. The viral Don Lemon exchange with actor Terry Crews is a great example of this. Despite the author's claims, BLM the organization and it's chapters do openly seek to achieve some of its objectives "by dismantling our American principals and structures."
- Black lives do matter. Police brutality is abhorrent and we should always strive to see that everyone has the opportunity to realize the American Dream as MLK called for.
- BLM the organization advocates to "disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure" when studies have shown the importance of fatherhood on raising children. (See Obama's June 2008 speech on the importance of fatherhood)
- In the name of this organization, equity advocates have pushed for equality of outcome over equality of opportunity; methods to achieve said outcomes are redistribution policies or biasing the structures towards outcomes based on group identity.
- BLM the Organization has called for and supported extensive, and at times total, defunding the police, a policy not supported by many, myself included, who agree that Black lives do matter and recognize that low crime rates save lives.
- Through chapters, BLM has advocated Far-Left policies in the name of racial justice. For example BLM DC openly dedicates itself to “the abolition of systems and institutions of white supremacy, capitalism, patriarchy and colonialism.”
- BLM has partnered with groups to advocate Green New Deal policies in the name of "Climate Justice," which includes policies that involve major government takeover of large parts of the economy.
- In the name of the organization and with it's local leadership, housing policies are being advocated that undermine local sovereignty and as I write this, "community character" is being recast as a dirty word in Hartford. I love Newtown's rural character and believe in our Plan of Conservation and Development. Should 1%er developers (usually white) be able to cast that aside to further enrich themselves?
- Citing BLM and broader Far-Left "Woke" culture, Cancel Culture has been used to bully and censor non-conforming views. (See Bari Weiss' resignation letter from The New York Times)
- While Lamont looked the other way and offered "no comment," in NYC the Mayor has openly restricted the constitutionally protected exercise of the 1st Amendment for everyone... except protesters supporting this organization. As George Orwell wrote "some are more equal than others."
Just as I may consider myself a patriot, yet disagree with aspects of the Patriot Act, in the same respect we should be able to have open conversations about these policies without dismissing those who may disagree with specific policy choices as if they more broadly do not think Black lives matter.
My comments are my own as an individual and not on behalf of the Legislative Council, or any other organization, of which I am a member.
Based on Merriam Webster’s definition of racism,
“A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”
Which current Connecticut state policies/laws do you believe were founded on racism, and designed to execute the principles of racism, and thus need to be changed or abolished?