A knucklehead Sioux Falls booster is quoted in this morning's Argus as telling state legislators to "stay out of the way" of Sioux Falls' growth. Nationwide he's getting his wish. Federal taxpayers from across the country are spending $40 million of their hard-earned dollars on the Phillips to the Falls project for Sioux Falls' growth.
Taxpayers didn't complain though. They dismiss the $40 million as "federal money".
The Rapid City Journal uncorks this sour whine on their editorial page this morning. They think their precious nature-lovers and synagogue-goers "deserve" an outdoor education center. They "need" an environmental classroom and a taxpayer funded park to protect a local synagogue.
The Journal wants state taxpayers to be dunned for the $10 - $12 million it will cost to meet this need. Taxpayers probably won't complain about this boondoggle either. They'll dismiss the burden as "state money".
Here's a tip - there is no such thing as "federal money". There is no such thing as "state money". There is only money. And, if the government's spending it, it's coming out of your pocket.
It's easy to lose sight of this fact when money gets rolled up into large state and federal accounts. It's analogous to how you boil a frog alive - you don't turn the heat up all at once, he'll hop right out of the pot. No, you raise the heat little by little. That way, he won't know he's being cooked.
People, we're being cooked.
Here's a typical display of ignorance or deceit from CCK.
His post would make sense but for the presumtion of innocence and the fact that Deadrick is not now representing Klaudt and, from what news reports say, did not represent Klaudt in the two court appearances Deadrick attended.
Thus CCK's note that "the lawyer representing a page abuser, is sitting on a committee to investigate the page program and make recommendations for change." is completely false.
Here's a perfect example of the ad hominem fallacy from Sioux Falls' Village Idiot, Rendall Beck:
"Anyway, it's my guess those who are griping about the shortage of information on Johnson's health didn't vote for him in 2002 and won't vote for him next year if he does seek reelection. That's why their near-unanimous complaint - that his absence means South Dakotans are under-represented in the Senate - rings a little hollow."
If one followed Beck's "reasoning" one would conclude the Argus should cease its attempt to get Governor's Hunt names from the state because the Argus doesn't support the Governor and because the Argus just wants the names to create a sensational story, sell more papers, and collect more ad revenue.
Guns in Homes Strongly Associated with Higher Rates of Suicide is the conclusion of a study released last week by the Harvard School of Public Health.
The researchers found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher rates of suicide by children, women and men. In the 15 states with the highest levels of household gun ownership, twice as many people committed suicide compared with the six states with the lowest levels, even though the population in both groups was about the same.
The association between firearm ownership and suicide was due to higher gun-related suicides; non-gun-related suicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership. Also, suicide attempts using firearms, which constitute just 5% of all fatal and non-fatal attempts, are highly lethal--more than 90% of all suicidal acts by firearm are fatal. By comparison, individuals who use drugs to attempt suicide, which constitute 75% of all attempts, die in the attempt less than 3% of the time.
Lenny Bruce did a bit called "Blah Blah Blah" about one of his obscenity trials. He was charged with violating the law in San Francisco by saying "cocksucker" in his act. So he did this bit that went (in part):
"A ten letter word, I'm not going to repeat the word because I want to finish the gig here tonight . . . Now, we get into court . . . Swear the Heat in. 'What did he say?' 'Your honor he said Blah Blah Blah!' The Judge: 'He said Blah Blah Blah?' Then the guy really yented it up - 'That's right!' . . . He said 'Blah Blah Blah! He said Blah Blah Blah!' And then they dug something. They sorta liked saying Blah Blah Blah. Because they said it a few extra times . . ."
And that's what is happening in this Imus thing. They really like saying "nappy-headed hos" because they're saying it a few extra times.
"Though Rounds is Roman Catholic, you don’t have to be of that faith to appreciate the special challenges that booster seats present. They take up a full passenger slot in any vehicle where they are used, and as a result, families with, say, four children and two adults are forced to buy a six-passenger vehicle, at minimum."
Oh, wait a sec, that was neither bigoted, Catholic-bashing, nor hateful was it? No, it was cute. It was fun.
Powers, who casts shame on the dirty bastards at the Mitchell Daily Republic and Epp who describes the comment as "stupid and insensitive at best, hateful at worst" need to lay off the Political Correctness KOOL-AID® and lighten the hell up.
These two knuckleheads compound their error by reading into the Mitchell paper's comment the notion that the Mitchell folk believe Rounds vetoed the booster seat bill in part because of his faith. Or, that that would be wrong. As Rounds' explained in his veto message:
"Parents with large families and neighbors dropping children off at school come immediately to mind. I will not force South Dakota citizens to weigh their passengers before deciding whether to transport them to the movies."
Why did they come immediatly to Rounds' mind? Because Rounds has some experience with large families - he comes from one. A large Catholic family at that. (Gasp!! I typed "Catholic"! I'M DOOMED!!) However, while Rounds' experience which influenced his veto decision may touch on the fact of his faith or circumstances that are the consequence of his family's faith, I don't think the Mitchell paper is implying that Rounds vetoed the bill at the direction of the Pope.
Honestly, these two must have IQ's smaller than their hat sizes.Neither has been known for their deep-thinking abilities, but the problem is evidently worse than we knew. It's bi-partisan stupidity of the first order.
Fellas, lighten the hell up and get a clue.
Note to Pat Lalley,
Either your North End upbringing gave you a thick skin and a high level of tolerance for the rough and tumble of political discourse or you are offended by a nutty little comment like “Satan’s gift to the Democrat Party” and you need to start wearing a skirt to work. But, you can't have it both ways.
What’s Rounds thinking with his attacks on Prieksat?
This is a bunch who won’t tell you who attended the Governor’s Hunt. They won’t let the Governor’s Press Secretary speak for the Governor. They (and their insurance salesman boss) smile a lot and say little. Not much more substance than the nice guy billboard that got Rounds elected in the first place.
But, when it comes to Rounds’ disdain for a federal game warden, a G-man for geese, Rounds and his number two just can’t shut up.
From a handicapping perspective my money’s on the G-man. Whatever his weakness in bedside manner, he seems to follow the law. It must be tough to fire or transfer a guy like that. You have to think Rounds has no sway at the White House or he’d have quietly cashed some chits there and gotten the guy moved. Instead he’s put himself in a loud messy attack on a law and order guy. Doesn’t seem like smart politics to me.
Hey, speaking of Rounds, how’s that Dunbar Mine coming? That mine deal should come through right after the big Dunbar casino / rail line project opens for business.
Bill Harlan has a terrific gag here at blogmore where he slips the Diet of Worms into a post on education funding. Harlan writes that, ever since 9th grade history he likes to write "Diet of Worms".
A commenter there noted another cool history moment - the Defenestration of Prague. You can look it up!
When Kate Looby says the voters of South Dakota "don't want government involved in this very personal, private family issue," she displays an ignorance of what South Dakota voters think about abortion.
An Argus/KELO poll in May of 2004 found 63% of South Dakotans supported an abortion ban with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, and incest. That poll found 25 percent said abortion should be illegal in any circumstance; 38 percent said it should be legal but restricted “to very specific circumstances, such as rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.”
A Focus South Dakota poll in March 2006 found: 22 percent believe abortion should be legal and left entirely up to women; 15 percent believe it should be legal but parental consent should be required if pregnant females are younger than 16; 25 percent believe abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest and medical danger to a woman’s life; 20 percent believe abortion should be allowed only to save a woman’s life; 13 percent believe abortion should not be legal under any circumstances; and the rest were undecided. That’s 58% who would support an abortion ban such as currently proposed.
An Argus Leader poll in July of 2006 regarding HB 1215 indicated the ban would have broader overall support if it included an exception for cases involving rape or incest. Those undecided or against that form of the abortion ban were asked if they would favor the proposed law if it included those exceptions. Statewide, 59% said they would support that form of an abortion restriction.
So, since May of 2004, polls have found between 58% and 63% of South Dakotans opposed to abortion save for cases involving the life of the mother, rape, or incest.
The notion that an abortion ban with exceptions is not supported by the people can only be from ignorance or dishonesty.