Sunday, March 28, 2010

Sunday Morning Links

Good Morning One and All.  I hope you're weekend has been productive and/or relaxing (I normally have to pick one of the two [especially if Indiana Jane is around]).  Links?  Yes, please.

Howard County officials want the reuse of wastewater to be the new standard for large developments in the county.  I don't know much about this (and didn't find the article to be particularly enlightening on the subject), so I did some good old fashioned googling.  While I doubt this is what they're talking about, from everything I can find, reuse is limited to agricultural purposes, however the article notes that it can be used at industrial plants, presumably for rehab/mitigation purposes.  I think this is a great idea, but, as with all things, I think the use of wastewaster needs to be "need-driven" and that proper policy cannot just say "let's reuse waste-water."  Hopefully they can find the corresponding need, but if not, this is, yet again, a program that gets into the paper that cannot be effectuated in practice.

Sheila Dixon shares my own belief that SRB's mock budget was a "scare tactic."  I'm somewhat surprised that Sheila didn't decide to keep herself on the down-low for a bit, but then again, this is one public figure that no one can predict.

Bob Ehlich's footsie team suggests that they are ready to "go all the way."  Rumor has it that there will be an anouncement around Thursday of next week (April 8th).

The Maryland Legislature apparently is only willing to make easy cuts to the budget, and is wary about shifting pension costs back to the County (the people who decide how much they will offer their teachers in pensions).  Moral Hazard.

Wordbones gets some yardwork out of the way.

HowChow wants you to get out for Taste for Life.

I've noticed that some Anonymous commenters have taken to calling individuals, and NCA as a group, "liars" in the course of the redevelopment debate.  I respect the right to remain Anonymous while expressing dissent, and why some individuals may feel the need to do so, but I don't support name calling behind the mask of anonymity.  I'm not going to delete these comments, but I think it is childish and detracts from the substance of this debate.  However, I also feel that this is the result of escalation of rhetoric allowed by both parties, referring to either side as "crazies," "nut-jobs," or "greedy developers."  Hopefully cooler heads will prevail, but I have begun to doubt it.

13 comments:

  1. HCR, please don't delete the anonymous comments. They are an accurate reflection of the nature of the opposition.

    This whole debate has degraded so much that it reminds me of the 2008 national election. I could never have a conversation with an Obama supporter without it becoming all about how Bush was a liar and Cheney and Rove were the devil, all personal attacks with no basis, etc.... But they could never pick an issue and support their position with facts - they justs started yelling about how Bush et al were just terrible people.

    Hopefully this phase of the process will be over in a week and we can get back to talking about the remaining legislation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What I read was "They lied" and "Myths" and "misrepresentations". Which do you prefer? Was the term 'X is a liar' used? I'm presuming that readers are intelligent enough to realize that telling a lie doesn't define an entire person as a liar. Exactly what names were called, because I don't see 'liar'.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous 9:59, look at the NCA string that HCR started. Your being intentionally obtuse about the work "liar" does not serve you or your position well. The intent by that poster was to call David and members of NCA "liars" because they use "lies." Interestingly, though this NCA string is now over three days old, no one has rebutted anything contained in the NCA piece, other than by calling the statements "lies." Clearly, these statements were not made to enlighten or continue the debate, but to intimidate. Interesting turn-around, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon 10:31, obtuse? It was extremely clear. If a person lies about a subject, calling them on that specific lie is different than calling names.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anon 7:09 and 7:14. If this whole discussion will be dabate on the definition of the word lie, maybe we can get Billy Clinton oiver to halp us with the word "the" Assuming we all have a basic knowledge of the word lie, can you help us by pointing our where NCA lied?

    ReplyDelete
  6. So, Anonymous 7:14, if a person lies, that person is not necessarily a liar? Sounds like you are a politician to me.

    A person can misinform, misled, or even just be wrong about a fact. I believe that is what you are suggesting. But when one uses the word "lie" in the context of an affirmative statement, it can mean only one thing... that the person uttering the "lie" is a "liar."

    In any case, answer David's question, if you can. Maybe that will help us understand what you mean.

    ReplyDelete
  7. “Watch your thoughts, for they become words.
    Watch your words, for they become actions.
    Watch your actions, for they become habits.
    Watch your habits, for they become character.
    Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.”

    "You are what you do, not what you say you'll do."

    When you lie, you clearly are a liar.
    When you cheat, you are a cheater.
    When you steal, you are a thief.

    There should be no grey area, it just causes the rationaliation of bad decisions.
    We should not only hold polititians and candidates to this standard, but everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sorry it's Rationalization, I was typing too fast!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sorry it's Rationalization, I was typing too fast.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." 4:8
    Colossians

    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/good/long.html

    Looks like I might have to quit reading these blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I've heard of "holier than thou" retorts, but you bring it to a whole new level, Anonymous. Please don't let my little old blog disturb your otherwise unquestionably virtuous existence.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hey, Anon 11:57 went the route of the Catholic, "watch what you think.." and you brought it up with the leap from lie to liar. Just keeping with the flow, interjecting some contrast. Not holier.

    ReplyDelete