house

Not like Pierre

Fatah gunmen in the Palestinian Legislative Council building.

Play Money

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.

argumentum ad hominem - circumstantial

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."

Riiiiight.

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.

Gonzales v. Carhart

“the government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman.”

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

Powers & Epp: Casper Milquetoast, meet Mr. Limpet

Pat Powers and Todd Epp are up in arms about the following bigoted, Catholic-bashing, hateful comment from the Mitchell Daily Republic:

"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.

Getting no credit from the Argus

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.

Honk!

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.

Smarter than your average bear, er, pol.

Here's a take nobody else has on Speaker-elect Pelosi's play of the Murtha run for Majority Leader.

Guess who stuck a "Kick me!" sign on his own back?

What a dumbass.

Who's pro-abortion?

That's Kevin Woster's rhetorical question here at blogmore - "Is anybody really pro-abortion? Could anybody really be pro-abortion?"

Woster would have us believe no one is really pro-abortion. Wouldn't it be nice if that were true?

Of course the reverse is true - lots and lots of us are pro-abortion. That's why abortion is legally protected in every state in the union. That's why every attempt to ban the practice is fought at every turn. That's why HB 1215 was referred to the ballot. Because many, many people are pro-abortion.

Every voter who votes against Referred Law 6 is, by their actions, pro-abortion. They are acting to preserve the legal protections for abortion. How much more pro-abortion can you be?

Later in his post, Woster devolves to a discussion of "feelings". He writes: "I know people who truly are anti-abortion, who truly find it abhorrent, but say they can’t bring themselves to vote for this particular bill." By "are" we can only assume Woster means "feel like they are". Because someone who says they find abortion abhorrent but who votes to keep the act legal certainly is not, based on the objective measure of their actions, anti-abortion. They may "feel" like they are anti-abortion. But they are pro-abortion.

Who's pro-abortion? Everyone who votes "no" on Referred Law 6, they're all pro-abortion.

It's time to stop screwing around with dishonest euphemisms like "pro-choice" and acknowledge that people who act to keep abortion legal are, as a matter of fact, pro-abortion.