Today’s Indiana edition of the Louisville Courier-Journal offers an op/ed page, pro vs. con consideration of New Albany’s Great Sanitation Debate, 2005, asking the slightly misleading toss-up question, “should New Albany privatize?
PRO: Sanitation solution a tough but necessary choice
By Mayor James E. Garner, Sr.
CON: Mayor didn't work with the city council, workers or the public, by Mickey Thompson, president of the sanitation workers union in New Albany.
As always, note the short shelf life on C-J links.
Although slightly tweaked, both pieces are substantially the same as ones published in the New Albany Tribune on Sunday, July 31, and discussed earlier: The 'Bune asks: “Public or Private Sanitation?”
Meanwhile, over at Speak Out, Lout (NA), the “little people” are screaming themselves into a vigorous lather -- threatening people, joining their beloved Gang of Four in buffoonishly lampooning progress, revving their Matchbox coupes, and circulating inflammatory petitions demanding the immediate recall of 2005 and the return of Warren G. Harding to the White House.
Pity the public officials who draw the short straw and get to count all those “X’s.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Roger,
Your take on the Speak Out Loud NA blog is almost laughable if it were not so mean spirited.
I have allowed you back to the SOL blog for discussions, and this is what comes of it.
You are simply incapable of exhibiting any measure of decorum, and you have shown this time and time again by thrashing those whose opinions differ from your own. You hold yourself above the rest only in your own mind.
Progress is in the eye of the beholder, and there are 2 schools of thought regarding progress for New Albany. Can't you show just a little respect for others?
Your remarks are cruel and your implications of low intelligence are nothing less than a slap in the face of your fellow citizenry.
Is this your idea of progress?
Laura, will you pleas explain to us once and for all why you defend the anonymous remarks attacking me (there were probably a half-dozen yesterday alone), then shriek like a banshee when I give 'em back a drop or two of their own medicine?
In fact, I ( a known entity) was being helpful to these hidden assailants by answering their concerns about copyright law, tavern placement v.v. churches, and their inaccurate information about the Destinations store.
Three questions raised, three questions answered, but of course since no one really wanted to hear answers, here I am again being pilloried by you.
Did you read the conversation I had with Shirley last week? It was civil, even though she and I likely disagree on everything, and the reason why it was civil was because each of us knows who the other is, and isn't.
Dialogue is murdered by nothing so much as your cherished anonymity clause.
You can't have it both ways, Laura, but you continue to demand it. You persistently defend the worst traits in the natures of your fans, then just as consistently attack those of us who are willing to be known and take the heat for it.
Oft times you have cited fear of retribution as a reason to shield the identity of your readers. Has it ever occurred to you, even once, that it's a far more frightening scenario to have all those anonymous people attacking known entities? Don't think we'd like to know who is assassinating our characters?
A final note: You haven't "allowed" anything, because the laughable part of it all is the way you pretend to have rules, but disappear for days on ened and not enforce them. "Hey, don't attacl," you say, then the anonymous attacks appear and sit there untouched for days.
I am most decidedly not superior to anyone in terms of intelligence. It takes all kinds to make a world. But I'm quite willing to throw inanity back in the faces of the inane, so long as you continue to confuse inanity with courage.
That's called "satire," and it's as much a tool in the arsenal of change as ballot boxes and council meetings.
Post a Comment