Monday, September 22, 2014

Learn You're The Cure CPR Hands Only Technique At Roosevelt Island Women's Health Organization Monthly Seminar Wednesday September 24 - Domestic Violence Seminar Wednesday October 29

Hands Only CPR Training During June 21 Roosevelt Island Day

The Roosevelt Island Women's Health Organization (RIWHO) sends the following invitation to women 18 years and older for its upcoming seminars:

Image From Roosevelt Island Women's Health Organization
Here are the Fall 2014 dates for Roosevelt Island Women's Health Organization.

Our 1st seminar -- Wed. Sept. 24th
Topic will be CPR Training

The 2nd seminar -- Wed. Oct. 29th
Topic will be Domestic Violence

The 3rd seminar -- Wed. Nov. 19
Topic to be announced

The 4th seminar -- Wed. Dec. 17
Topic to be announced

Location:
546 Main Street
12th Floor Community Room
Time: 6:30pm

Dates and topics for 2015 to be announced.
Roosevelt Island resident Lynn Strong-Shinozaki is working with the American Heart Association's You're The Cure to teach Hands Only CPR Training. According to Ms. Strong Shinozaki:
... We are also working with groups like RIWHO and will be doing a training next Wednesday along with a talk about how to recognize when you are having a heart attack and stroke.

We are offering to work with any island group who would like us to do the training. It is not a certification. You do not receive a certificate. You simply learn what to do if a loved ones heart stops working.

To date we have trained 222 people who live or work on Roosevelt Island. We would love to train anyone who is bilingual to be facilitators in their native languages. Anyone interested can contact me....
Ms. Strong-Shinozaki explained Hands Only CPR Training during September 10 Roosevelt Island Residents Association (RIRA) meeting Public Session.



More information on Hands Only CPR Training here



and here.



UPDATE 9/23 - From RIWHO:

9 comments :

CheshireKitty said...

So who is Kramer going to come down on next - We Are One Boutique - because it's not "organized" enough?

I think you have missed the point about Kramer: He took on the Master Lease to make money -period. He could care less if the poor people on the island have no place to shop. That's the bottom line.

One of the mainstays of the community is the parish and Kramer deliberately undermined it - and makes it that much more difficult for the parish to help the poor. Like Kramer stands to lose so much if he allows the thrift shop to continue in another empty store front. You don't see merchants falling over themselves anxious to start a business RI. These store fronts are empty on a long-term basis. What is to to Kramer if the thrift shop continues? He has nothing to lose since these store fronts are empty.

He deliberately doesn't want the thrift shop to reopen because Kramer wants the poor people to go away, to be invisible, as their presence disturbs his "dream" of a completely gentrified island.

He doesn't want the poor people with their disabilities, their walkers, their old age, they are sometimes "poorly educated" they are not of the "same socio-economic class" as Kramer. The poor just aren't Kramer's sort of people.

And so, one by one, all the "cheap" stores on RI will have to shut down - more or less cutting off the commercial "oxygen" to the poor people of RI.

The General Store, which carried a variety of cheap goods - oh, also so very disorganized, that had to go. The thrift shop, which was anathema to Kramer in its "disorganization" - really, what Kramer hated was the fact that it provided a place where the poor could shop - that had to go.

What will be next? The Stationery Store - since it also carries a variety of cheap goods? Or We Are One Boutique - since it's a proudly African-American themed business, and that too may well be anathema to Kramer, as it seems too, way too "urban."

Finally, you can bet on it that Kramer will find a way to shut down the M&D Deli - since it's a magnet for the youth on the island. The Deli Kramer must hate with all his heart - as it represents "old" NY, with the "regular" food New Yorkers (as opposed to the gentry) enjoy - nothing fancy, just the basic deli food that unfortunately just isn't "elite" enough for Kramer. Kramer will figure out a way to chase the Deli away too.

And Trellis? Its "re-incarnation" will no doubt have to meet with Kramer's "approval" before he lets it re-open. Undoubtedly, he, the Master of Main St, will have to give the final OK on the new menu. If the menu is not "hip" or "progressive" enough, then it's back to the drawing board,


Because Kramer wants to remake Main St as he envisions it: A mecca of money, for moneyed people only.


And we know that moneyed people like nice, expensive restaurants. They do not go for "middle-brow" or "low class" sort of eateries or delis.


Main St under Kramer is undergoing a gradual but steady gentrification. You can say "Subway" is not exactly "exalted" or "gentrified." That is true - but Kramer has to provide at least some modest-price places on RI, for the help to eat at.

YetAnotherRIer said...

As always... Frank had the urge to make e-mail public, he calls everybody who doesn't agree with him names, he thinks he knows everything and whoever disagrees with him knows nothing, he tends to come up with conspiracies, he points out logic when others talk but he lets his own emotions free range.


Frank, this is getting boring.

Frank Farance said...

YetAnotherRIer: NYTimes uses Incompetent and Moronic. These excerpts sound like RIOC: "'When people are incompetent in the strategies they adopt to achieve success and satisfaction, they suffer a dual burden,'' Professor Dunning said. ''Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it.''"

Professor Dunning also said "It's very difficult for incompetent people to know they are incompetent, ... If they could figure it out, they probably wouldn't be."


And another quote from the same article titled "Incompetent and Maddeningly Oblivious" at "http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/21/jobs/incompetent-and-maddeningly-oblivious.html":

"Roughly one of six employees or managers fails to realize it when they are told about it point blank, according to Frank M. Shipper, professor of management at the Franklin P. Perdue School of Business at Salisbury State University in Maryland. Their bungling can be costly. Richard Cohen, an information technology consultant in Boston, tells the story of the chief information officer at a giant consumer goods company where he once worked who ignored his subordinates' advice and bought 600 personal computers that the manufacturer stated would probably be discontinued. His reason: they were cheap. Then he parked them in inventory for a year. ''That is like 10 dog years in the technology world,'' Mr. Cohen said."

Doesn't that sound like RIOC with the security cameras sitting in boxes for three years letting the warranties expire?

"One skill many incompetent people do have is making friends in high places. Recalling her boss at Hewlett-Packard, Ms. Boyd said: ''He was good friends with upper-level managers. I went to his boss one time, and he told me there were reasons he was there, so just leave it alone.'' ... Even when they know who the dunderheads are, many employers lack the heart to cut them loose. ''Some companies, especially small ones, are held hostage by the incompetent, especially if they have been around for a long time and have become entrenched,'' said Andrew J. Birol, the president of Pacer Associates, a consulting firm in Solon, Ohio."

Again, doesn't that sound like RIOC. Oh, and the NY Times calls them "dunderheads", too. So if the NY Times can use language like this, why do you believe I am prohibited from using it?

You can Google "site:nytimes.com moronic incompetence" and see over 2000 hits.

KTG said...

First any tenant not able make enough money to cover their rent should be asked to move on, and to be clear in that event the community has already spoken with their wallets.

On the fact that I don't get the point, you have that backwards you don't get the point. Hudson Related is a professional real estate firm so they do this for money, the point was they were contracted by RIOC to maximize revenue and provide more valuable retail services to whole island. Not to figure out where non-profits were housed, that's the real point. Also accommodations were made for library which is vital to entire community. And based on # of people coming off tram and subway with shopping bags more viable retailers than the thrift shop are required.

And I agree with commitment for businesses to be presentable example M&D deli is eyesore that should be closed. Its filthy in side, merchandise its old the only thing I see people by their are tallboys. Not to mention people are always smoking pot around it, I find it hard to believe there is no relationship there.

Frank Farance said...

Video Shows Motorgate Camera Direction Clearly Visible. Rick saw it, too. Why does Ms. Chirivas (CheshireKitty) deny the obvious? Rick also saw the camera lens pointing at just a few cars (e.g., where PSD officers have parked), and he saw the camera was pointing away from most of the cars. Rick wondered: Why were the cameras pointing at so few cars?

Ms. Chirivas believes that my photos of Motorgate cameras are a fake. Honestly, either Ms. Chirivas hasn't actually looked at the cameras, or she is purposely creating a fake argument (Ms. Chirivas has done so previously). Ms. Chirivas says in her comments below:

Chirivas/CheshireKitty: "I am telling Frank, to the naked eye, the dome housing of the cameras is supposed to, and does successfully obscure the direction the camera is pointing in. Unless you brought in a ladder and shone a bright light into the housing, you cannot possibly tell which direction the camera is pointing in, which is exactly the point of the housing. Thus, unless you can produce a videotape of you climbing up a ladder and shining a bright light into a housing and then photographing the camera in its housing, none of us can take seriously your allegations of faulty camera angles and so forth. You have not produced such a video, thus your arguments are specious."

The lens (where the camera is pointing) is clearly visible without any special lighting. One can stand under the camera and see which way it is pointing. Here is the video "http://youtu.be/Et4COs821Uo"

Chirivas/CheshireKitty: "You can believe what you like, but the photograph of a camera in a housing that you provide sure doesn't look like a photograph of Motorgate cameras, since the cameras in Motorgate are intentionally obscured within their dome housings."

I've attached again the photo of the camera. Clearly my photo matches these cameras in Motorgate, as demonstrated in the video.

So Ms. Chirivas (CheshireKitty), why the fake argument? There was no need to create the video, when the camera lens position is easily observed. This is why I wonder why she is arguing against the camera problem when her points are trivially rebutted.

I am happy to continue to rebut her lame arguments that protect RIOC. For Ms. Chirivas (CheshireKitty) who had no problems criticizing RIOC, including successfully initiating an AG/IG investigation into the (fraudulent) RIRA $10K proposal, why is she now RIOC's apologist when the facts point in the opposite direction?

Frank Farance said...

RIOC Board's Heckuva Job.

Remember when the WIRE was not in bed with the RIOC Board and able to report on problems that matter to the community? (Rather than protecting the present RIOC Board Members from scrutiny.) Here is what the WIRE used to say in October 2006 (see "http://old.nyc10044.com/wire/2704/wire2704.pdf", WIRE back issue archive at "http://old.nyc10044.com/wire/issulist.html")

WIRE: "Island's Street Lights Are Out – Survey Finds 40% Dark at Night $1.4 Million Being Spent for Island-Wide Upgrading: Four out of ten Roosevelt Island streetlights don’t work. ... But in some sections, most of the street lights are out at night – off, not working, as has been the case for years. With shorter days, the problem becomes more noticeable. A streetlight census conducted by The WIRE Monday through Wednesday nights, covering everything north of the Queensboro Bridge, produced some notable, if not alarming, figures: ..."

And then the WIRE reported on it again, and again, for several months. In the December 16, 2006 issue, the WIRE reported RIOC was "backsliding" on the lights. On March 10, 2007 and March 24, 2007 issues the WIRE is still reporting on streetlights (now in its Editorial) -- six months in a row of every issue of the WIRE. The street lights problem continued for a while, but the WIRE stopped reporting on it when Shane talked about possible RIOC nominee elections.

So when it was Herb Berman and his predecessors, it was easy to complain about RIOC and their not having resident board members. Now with 7 years of resident Board Members, including those from an elected nominee process, we still have problems with RIOC, and long-lasting problems with RIOC for which their Board has oversight. But the WIRE has a double standard: these kinds of complaints can't be stated now because it would show that the resident board members have made spectacularly bad mistakes, just like the prior non-resident boards.


Well maybe now with the ineptness of RIOC's operations, audit, governance, and real estate committees: the oversight is even worse now with a near-death from PSD abuse, near bankruptcy in RIOC's finances, regular AG/IG investigations, and an executive who went to jail.

Quoting George W. Bush: Mike, Howard, Margie, David ... you're doing a Heckuva Job!

CheshireKitty said...

Frank: Nobody cares. You're almost blubbering here.


Bottom line is: If you write to an agency and call them incompetent or moronic how likely is it they will cooperate with you, or see things your way?


Even managers don't call their employees
morons, or incompetent morons, even if they actually act that way - they try to be more constructive/professional in their critique.


Certainly parents shouldn't call their kids morons, not if they want the kids to have a shred a self-esteem in their future lives.


You try to support those you criticize, by constructively criticizing performance, or critiquing work product, and so forth. You can of course express your concern or distress about issues, but it's just not professional or particularly smart to simply bash them over the head with epithets like moron, or stupid, or incompetent. They will never take you seriously, and in the case of one's kids, you may give them a complex if you use abusive language toward them. They may not look up the NYT citations or a style sheet and instead simply hear the terms as abuse.

Frank Farance said...

When someone gets robbed in Motorgate and they ask for the videos and see no robbers, but do see video of PSD officers' cars, they will rightly use many choice words to describe RIOC. A bodega can get this right, apparently RIOC cannot.

NotMyKid said...

Just like you and typical public. They never get the crime on video but they get the officers actions on video and quarterback their job.