The Evil Empire And Their SD Olympic Ties

During my childhood, the Soviet Union was the evil empire, the bastion of communism, and our hated opponent during the 35 plus year cold war that saw bomb shelters being built in peoples back yards, ballistic missiles being deployed in Cuba, and unknown near misses that could have resulted in all out nuclear war. The late 80’s saw the downfall of communism in most of Eastern Europe and now the new century is seeing US citizens representing the former Soviet Union in the Olympic Games.

Rapid City’s own Becky Hammon becomes the latest athlete to represent a country that they are not a citizen of when she suits up for the Russian women’s basketball team for the Beijing Olympics this summer. I know this is nothing new and in fact I remember several instances of this happening in past competitions including the World Baseball Classic a few years ago but Ms Hammon is taking quite a beating in the comments section of the RCJ story documenting her decision.

Hammon doesn’t see a problem

“It will be special, and it will be different, but I have never let myself be defined by the name on the front of my jersey,” she said. “I think people’s reaction is ironic because I look at our country as the best and most giving. I bleed red, white and blue.”

But others do.

Regret wrote on Apr 10, 2008 11:30 AM:
” The only thing she’ll be remembered for, is that she couldn’t cut the mustard and couldn’t accept the fact she wasn’t good enough to play for team USA so she settled for second class. All the so called great things she did before will be overshadowed by this…just lide Barry Bonds, Lyle Alzado, Clemens. They won’t be known for breaking records, but for the one stupid thing they did in their life.

BTW, how will she explain to her children or grandchildren why she played for a different country during the Olympics? Hard to explain why you supported another country instead of your own.

But then again, she always was for herself. “

Is the fact that she is representing the Russians an issue for anyone and if so would you feel differently if it was say Jamaica? (had to add a “Cool Runnings” reference) Or is this much ado about nothing?

Please follow and like us:
error

Playing The Oil Card

Theophrastus Bombastus over at Dakota Voice posts this morning on a Drudge Headline and he appears to be chastising the Dems for seeking to use excess Iraqi oil money to help rebuild the country.

I seem to recall not that long ago that all the lib web sites and blogs were ranting about how the Iraq war was all about oil for Bush and his buddies in the oil industry. Does “No Blood for Oil” ring a bell?

It seems that the Iraqis have done pretty well on their oil since Saddam was overthrown to the tune of about 30 billion dollars, and with the rising cost of crude they stand to profit another 100 billion in the next few years. Now, we have the Democrats screeching that we should be demanding some of that profit from our allies, even before the country has been rebuilt and stabilized. They want their piece of the action NOW!

It seems that it was the Dems casting an envious eye on Iraqi crude all along. It is almost axiomatic that whatever the Dems accuse the Republicans of they are already neck deep in and are only trying to divert attention from their illegal or immoral activities.

With the cost of this “war” now bordering on bankrupting our future, what is wrong with this idea? Using Iraqi revenues to fix the Iraqi infrastructure, I seem to remember someone else floating the same idea a while back when trying to sell the war.

In selling the war to voters, Bush administration officials said overthrowing Saddam Hussein would cost as little at $50 billion, and that much of the reconstruction could be paid for with the Iraq’s oil revenue. (emphasis mine)

Or is it only ok when the Bush administration suggests this?

Oh and how’s that $50 billion in costs thing going?

Please follow and like us:
error

Intolerate Pot Meet Intolerant Kettle

Admittedly some of the diaries on Daily Kos go a bit overboard, OK big time overboard, but when one of the most religiously intolerant right-wing blogs on the internet calls them out for being antisemitic, Miriam Webster starts the presses so they can rewrite the definition of hypocrisy.

They just can’t help it. Loony antisemitic diaries keep getting posted at Daily Kos, no matter how much they try to stop them. They’ve encouraged and coddled, and winked and nodded at this kind of hatred for years, and now it bubbles up unpredictably in disgusting articles like this one: Daily Kos: Why I’m Not a Zionist.

This coming from the site that has made it’s name by being nothing more than a hate filled anti-Muslim site, Little Green Footballs.

Please follow and like us:
error

A Way To End The Abortion Debate Instantly?

In 2006 many, myself excluded, thought that the voters in South Dakota had put the idea of banning abortions to bed. At the time, many thought that the voters had spoken and we could now move on to working on other issues facing our residents like teacher pay etc. Fast forward to 2008 and we are again facing another attempt at banning abortions (funny that teacher pay thing still hasn’t been addressed) and this time even some pro-life groups aren’t happy with the rape/incest exceptions placed on the latest attempt.

Colorado on the other hand is shifting the focus of the debate. Instead of attacking abortion directly, they are looking to legislate when life begins with their Human Life Amendment. If you think about it, determining when human life begins would end the debate instantly. It moves the abortion question away from a woman’s choice argument, once the fetus reaches the legal definition, and gives it the same rights as a child that has been born. It would also re-affirm the woman’s choice argument for pregnancies that haven’t reached the legal determination giving them the opportunity to have the procedure if they choose to do so.

Sounds pretty good doesn’t it? On the surface it does until you look a bit deeper into the Colorado amendment. As with many issues of this type, unquestioned beliefs, not science is used when they define personhood as a fertilized egg. This not only effectively outlaws all abortions, it also makes almost all after the fact contraception illegal. Quite the end around isn’t it? (Why didn’t Leslie or Roger come up with this?)

Personally, I think we as a country could end the abortion debate with one determination. The Colorado amendment has the right idea but not the proper research. Why can’t the same science that can cure diseases that only a generation ago used to kill us, be used to scientifically determine when life begins using similar milestones that are used for removing life support?

Once science does that we can finally put the abortion debate to bed. Then we can instead shift the debate to the science used which will surely follow. And as we all know, debating the results of scientific research is something that many of these same groups have plenty of practice doing.

UPDATE: First off thanks to Jon Schaff over at South Dakota Politics for linking to and adding his thoughts and his solution to this question. In this case though, I think Mr Schaff missed the purpose of my post.

While I believe that scientifically determining when life begins could end the abortion debate, the science that would go into making that determination would never be accepted by many (unless of course it fits their beliefs). To these folks science never trumps their belief system no matter what the evidence to the contrary might be. In other words, the debate isn’t really a debate to those most passionate on both sides, compromise no matter what might be determined, isn’t possible.

Colorado’s Human Life Amendment is an example of that as is Rebecca Kissling’s Facebook group’s opposition to the latest South Dakota ballot issue that PP mentions in his post that I linked to above.

Please follow and like us:
error

How Do You Know Hillary Is Lying?

Her lips are moving…

First she was taking fire during a 1996 trip to Bosnia

Now she is having issues involving the “tragic” heath care problem of a pregnant Ohio woman that died when she was denied treatment. The problem in both cases, none of it is true.

It appears she and President Bush do have at least one thing in common, both can tell stories that have very little basis in fact.

Please follow and like us:
error

Best South Dakota Blog?

On my way out the door to the airport but this post caught my eye.

Yesterday, we got a mention from Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post , who wrote an article asking for the best state political blogs. Lo and behold, Badlands Blue got named as the best political blog in South Dakota.

Badlands Blue??? Feel free to comment on this among yourselves.

Please follow and like us:
error