The snow has melted, but Black Hills correspondent Bob Newland finds Snowflake General Jason Ravnsborg and a lot of other white at the sheriffs and police chiefs meeting in Deadwood:
Great to address the joint Sheriff’s and Chief’s meeting in Deadwood this morning. @SDSheriffsAssoc pic.twitter.com/ZQGWEASksH
— SD Attorney General (@SDAttorneyGen) April 24, 2019
While Jason Ravnsborg makes speeches and plays footman to the Governor, Keystone XL subcontractor Brandenburg Drainage has released the liens it slapped on Meade Count landowners on the pipeline route. Our Attorney General had nothing to say about this infringement of the property rights of innocent South Dakota landowners who bore no responsibility for the contractors’ shoddy work or whatever financial haggles were going on behind the pipeline scenes. Brandenburg Drainage from Iowa and its superior contractor Diamond Willow Energy of North Dakota also have nothing to say other than to wave off the inquisitive Seth Tupper with claims of a non-disclosure agreement.
The state Water Management Board is giving Keystone XL opponents a little more time to rally their arguments against TransCanada’s drive to slurp up a bunch of our water along with our land rights. The board was supposed to consider TransCanada’s application to use water from former House Speaker Dean Wink’s land to support its man camps, but they postponed that hearing to May 8–9 to give folks time to study all the last-minute filings made Tuesday. No word yet on how many of the men in those Wink-watered camps will be South Dakotans, but you can be sure Jason Ravnsborg won’t be arresting any of those fine temporary petro-serfs as they plow Big Oil’s profit line into our ground.
“White” sheriffs? Wow. I wish all of you liberals would get off the identity politics. It’s sad.
‘White” sheriffs with Ravnsborg – an exclusive club – they think!
What do you suppose Jason told the lawdogs?
“I have your backs?”
I can hear the collective sigh of relief from Hot Springs.
I wish all of you Steve Pearsons would recognize the identity politics you practice from your comfortable but dwindling majoritarianism and stop pretending that you don’t. Voting for Donald Trump (and Jason Ravnsborg) is all about identifying with white male supremacy.
Cory is correct and so is this woman regarding trump.
“We have to get this right. The Mueller report isn’t just a reckoning about our recent history; it’s also a warning about the future. Unless checked, the Russians will interfere again in 2020, and possibly other adversaries, such as China or North Korea, will as well. This is an urgent threat. Nobody but Americans should be able to decide America’s future. And, unless he’s held accountable, the president may show even more disregard for the laws of the land and the obligations of his office. He will likely redouble his efforts to advance Putin’s agenda, including rolling back sanctions, weakening NATO and undermining the European Union.
Of all the lessons from our history, the one that’s most important may be that each of us has a vital role to play as citizens. A crime was committed against all Americans, and all Americans should demand action and accountability. Our founders envisioned the danger we face today and designed a system to meet it. Now it’s up to us to prove the wisdom of our Constitution, the resilience of our democracy and the strength of our nation.” Hillary Clinton Washington Post April 24, 2019
Ravansborg is a threat to democracy and especially, first amendment rights.
So Brandenburg drainage did shoddy work and Diamond Willow refused to pay them, so , in a snit fit, Brandenburg took innocent landowner’s hostage and will walk away scot free. Where’s the nearest hemp field and a stout tree?
Parting shot at Dakota Access pipeline owner- https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dakota-access-energy-transfer-pipeline-websites_n_5cc1ee0ee4b0e56130ee84cc
Energy Transfer has been buying up negative sounding websites to stop people from ridiculing them. Poor babies.
Mr. H, I did not vote for Mr. Trump or Mr. Ravnsborg. I also don’t know what identity politics is, but I am older than most and not as worldly as some.
Grudznick, your identity as goatchaser is well-known. ;-)>
paid trolls like pearson Jason perhaps dale old sarge grdz ect can say anything that they are paid to say with no moral compunction, such as identity politics and because they are allowed unfettered access here, we waste vast attention on such distractions. yuk :(
Grudzjer, everything about your identity is well known.
That’s a grim sight, that photo of old white men with power gathered together in a room. Usually little good comes of it for women, children and POC. Ugh.
Cory, I’m sick to death of you using the term “white man” as a
pejorative. I am an old white man. I know many old white men,
many young white men, many middle aged white men, who have no
reason to apologize for being white.
On Russian interference in our elections. They shouldn’t do it.
But, google “U.S. interference in foreign elections” or google this,
“U.S. interference in Israeli elections” and see what you find.
Thanks Mr. Arndt, only a “white man” would happily compare the United States with Russia in interference of elections. Only a “white man” could justify trump using Russian influence and vote rigging, maybe even sexual favors by Butina, to say more or less ” well we do it, so it’s okay if Russia, Saudi Arabia, the UAE or China rigs the election as long as our “white man” wins it. Well played sir, well played.
Jerry, I’m not saying that one country interfering in another
country’s elections is justified. What I am saying is that the
U.S. criticising Russia for interfering in the election of another country
is hypocritical.
On Russian interference in our elections. They shouldn’t do it.
Obama made an attempt to stop the interference and an old white man stopped him (McCTurtle)
\Drumpf, otoh, encouraged the hacking and benefited from it. Then he did nothing to stop interference in 2018 election and beyond. He is an old white traitor.
Now old white traitor is bragging about being the world’s greatest hostage negotiator, claiming he offered 2 million in medical reimbursements for the release of comatose US student and then claims he didn’t pay it. He is an old white disgraceful traitor with no relationship towards being a “man”.
Sir, there is no way to equate Russian interference with American elections and whatever you are trying to pull out of your arse. Here is a fact, that Mueller proved in his report. Read that and then get back to me.
“We’re at war with Russia and they are winning. The most disturbing conclusion from the Mueller Report is that Russia made a concerted effort to alter the results of the 2016 election. “The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.” Vladimir Putin and his cronies wanted Trump to win and engaged in a variety of technical efforts to help him. It’s not clear what the overall impact was. Russians operatives were active in key swing states — such as Michigan,Ohio, and Pennsylvania — but it’s not provable that the Russian efforts resulted in Trump’s 78,000 vote margin. What is clear is that the Russians helped the Trump campaign by concerted social-media campaigns and hacking Clinton-campaign emails.
There’s no evidence that Russian interference has abated. Indeed, if one looks at the Putin’s objectives, there’s no reason for the Russians to stop because they are succeeding. Russian efforts have weakened U.S. morale and diminished our role as leader of the “free” world. (They have also weakened the European Union and brought the United Kingdom to the brink of chaos.)”
When members openly laugh at the president because they know he is full of crap, is when we have lost the moral compass in the world. That Russian puppet in the white house has got to go.
Edwin said, “I’m sick to death of you using the term “white man” as a pejorative. I am an old white man. I know many old white men.”
Have you considered, Mr. Arndt, how it feels for females to hear “just a woman” for her entire lifetime? Or how “Muslim terrorist” assaults the ears of a peace loving Muslim businesswoman or man ever since setting foot in the USA? Or “ni***r” to a Black person since they were old enough to process sounds into words? Or fa***t to LBTG people before they even knew they were LBTG?
How long have you felt that “white man” sounded like a pejorative?
If you can use this experience, this emotion you are feeling, to create greater empathy with the groups of people who’ve been verbally attacked, diminished and demeaned throughout their lifetimes, then your resentment will have purpose and meaning and you can use it positively. In the meantime, while you “white men” hold all the levers of power, your complaints don’t generate much sympathy.
Debbo, only for the last year or so.
It seems that liberals are blaming white men for
all the troubles in the world. Simply not so.
There are undoubtedly some bad white men.
That doesn’t make all white men bad.
You are painting with too broad a brush.
And, as I’ve pointed out several times on this blog,
you don’t win friends and influence people by
dissing those you are trying to convince.
Edwin, you understand that when those few white men, of course not all, have nearly all the power, the damage they do to the rest of us is immense?
Try to gain some perspective. While you’re upset about your hurt feelings, black men are getting shot down in their own backyard, women are being raped, Latinas’ children are being shot in the streets or ripped out of their arms by ICE and worse.
My suggestion to you is, rather than complain about slights that are miniscule in the scheme of things, get behind the people who’ve really suffered at the hands of white men and ask what you can do to support them. Look beyond the end of your nose.
Edwin and DFPers, this brief article from the Strib is really helpful in talking about how to raise boys to be safer, smarter and better, more empathetic men. It is paywalled, so I’ll give you a few highlights.
It’s from a Q and A with psychologist Michael Reichert, who wrote new book, “How to Raise a Boy: The Power of Connection to Build Good Men.”
“The danger is the impact of the cultural norms of masculinity on how boys perform, particularly for other boys. The risk-taking, the unwise decisions, the trying to prove that you’re a tough guy, or macho, or dangerous, or bold — beginning really, really young. These norms actually impact boys’ behavior and attitudes as young as 4 years old.
“I think that one of the secrets that I’m not sure women, even mothers, fully understand about the lives of the men that they have relationships with is that most all of us have had to reckon with a threat that’s often quite immediate and physical. And it begins really, really young, and under the nose of the adults who care for us.”
I’ve heard about the physical threats of not being tough enough and having to fight someone to prove yourself or do something dangerous, but I haven’t lived it so I can’t really say what it’s like. It sounds fairly awful.
“The UCLA finding that one-third of college age men said they might force a girl to have sex if they weren’t afraid of getting caught … it’s upsetting as hell when you think about the impact of that on, for example, freshman year girls.”
and
“72% of young men, after a hookup, feel regret, wishing that something more intimate had happened. So those same guys, I assume, some of them, they don’t know how to negotiate a relationship.”
How to help a boy learn more about relationships and his own value that is not related to an ability to dominate.
“Special time . . . [Parents] are going to simply find the boy, and sit down and do whatever he’s doing, without trying to dominate it, or modify it, or make it about their own preference or convenience. But simply to communicate to the boy, ‘I like you, and what you’re doing is interesting to me. I’m going to hang with you.’ ”
“Children are relational, emotional. They need limits when they’re acting out, but it’s a kind of limit that’s not about dominance and power, but more about interrupting an acting-out behavior so that the child can process what’s going on.”
Not about dominance and power, not about being big enough and strong enough to hold the boy down and hit him, show him who’s boss, etc.
Reichert feels the saying “boys will be boys” is an excuse and he dislikes the phrase “toxic masculinity.”
https://short1.link/urtZtQ
Debbo, to be clear, my feelings were not hurt a bit.
What I was sick of was Cory’s incorrect implications,
seemingly blaming a white man for being white.
As for all that psycological stuff, the vast majority of
men, be they white, black, brown, red, etc., are simply
not in to it. That’s reality.
That’s kind of funny Edwin, because that’s just what the article is stating, they’re just not into anything which requires inner wisdom, feelings, empathy– “that psychological stuff.” Hence the need for Reichert’s suggested additions in child raising.
Or we can not change a thing and continue with white men being the biggest terrorists in the country. As part of the group that is his most common victim, I prefer he changes. What about you?
Debbo, if you cling to the idea that all white men are terrorists you
lose credibility with both men and women. One problem is that a fair
number of girls and women consider the dominating and aggressive male
rather attractive. Hence, we get a fair number of males who seek to
be dominating and aggressive. No, I’m not saying that it’s women’s fault,
but that statement is true.
The white men who hold the levers of power are generally in that position
as a result of democratically held elections. They were elected by both men
and women. That situation seems to be slowly changing across the country.
Whatever change comes about in that regard will be evolutionary, not
revolutionary. You have a perfect right to advocate for that change.
However, know that you are trying to change the norm of thousands
of years of civilized history. I’m not saying it shouldn’t happen, but it
will be a slow tough slog.
I wish you well.
” you cling to the idea that all white men are terrorists”
Where did I say that? Where have I ever said that?
“know that you are trying to change the norm of thousands of years of civilized history. I’m not saying it shouldn’t happen, but it will be a slow tough slog.”
Of course I know that. After 60+ years of ongoing effort, how could I not?
“White men being the biggest terrorists in the country”.
That seems to me to be a blanket statement.
White guy in Tennessee was shot by police. They were looking for him in the deaths of five people. Still, people refuse to call mass killers terrorists because of a quirk in our laws. Using guns won’t get you listed as a terrorist in America.
From Politi Fact…..Newsweek said, “White men have committed more mass shootings than any other group.”
Newsweek based its claim on data from Mother Jones, which defines a public mass shooting as an incident in which the motive appeared to be indiscriminate killing and a lone gunman took the lives of at least three people. Under this definition, Mother Jones found that non-Hispanic white men have been responsible for 54 percent of mass shootings since August 1982.
Another tally, with a longer timeline and a different definition of mass shooting, found non-Hispanic white men make up 63 percent of these attacks. Under both definitions and datasets, white men have committed more mass shootings than any other ethnicity group.
Newsweek’s claim is literally accurate. But it’s worth noting the imprecision of this data, and the percentage of mass shootings by white men is lower than their share of the male population, according to Mother Jones.
We rate this Mostly True.
Edwin, it is a fact. White men self-characterized as “christians” have been responsible for about 99% of the mass shootings during US history. From Sand Creek to Wounded Knee to Sandy Hook, thousands murdered by white male “christians.”
False Victimhood by White Males …
– It’s done for abuse, dehumanization and diverting attention away from acts of cruelty by claiming that the abuse was justified based on another person’s bad behavior.
– It’s done for manipulation. Manipulators often play the victim role (“woe is me”) by portraying themselves as victims of circumstances or someone else’s behavior in order to gain pity or sympathy or to evoke compassion and thereby get something from someone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_playing
Ms. Geelsdottir, who is a woman, has a long history of hating all older, white men.
Grudznick, who is a maggot, has a long history of annoying humans.
Grudznick is a prime example of “false, white, male victimhood”. He’s attempting to dehumanize Debbo by diverting attention away from his lies and falsely claiming that his flawed personality is justified because Debbo has bad behavior.
It appears that Edwin and each responder to his comments actually agree on a fundamental premise – the skin color that an individual is born with will not make that individual good or evil, smart or dumb, a skilled leader or a demented killer.
Edwin seems to have come to an erroneous conclusion about Cory’s article.
There are only a couple of references to “white” men in Cory’s story, and none appear to use the term “white male” as a pejorative. Nothing Edwin has identified in Cory’s article either states or implies anything positive or negative about any person’s skin color. If I missed some such statement, perhaps Edwin can clarify.
The point that I got out of these references is that:
(1) the group, in whatever manner it was formed or chosen, is made up of only white individuals; and
(2) the group makeup implies skin color made well have been the controlling, but entirely inappropriate, factor in how each individual at the meeting was chosen for his law enforcement position.
And the reason such a factor as skin color is an appropriate basis for choosing sheriffs or other community leaders is that there is nothing about skin color that makes any individual more worthy than another for any particular position.
Thus, skin color is no more relevant than eye color or hair color. Old claims that skin color determines inherent intelligence or morals have been debunked in this day and age and, other than in groups like the KKK, rational people no longer rely on such bogus contrary studies.
So the real question for Edwin and others from Cory’s article is not whether white men are good or bad, but why are there only white men at this meeting?
And Edwin’s statement that
doesn’t answer the question. Rather, it avoids the underlying issue – why would voters choose only white men for these positions?
If skin color cannot create any inherent characteristic or quality that makes someone more qualified to be a leader, then isn’t there something worth exploring about how we pick leaders when only white men are being chosen, as in the case Cory’s article addresses?
Chances are that only white men were runnning.
In many rural counties of South Dakota, (and North Dakota) the non-white
population is close to non-existent. Therefore, whites get elected.
Edwin, I have not seen any population analysis of “rural counties of South Dakota, (and North Dakota),” but given the existence of reservations and a rather significant Native American population in both states, I would be surprised if “the non-white population is close to non-existent.” Can you reference any research findings to support drawing such a conclusion?
But if, in fact, only white men ran for all of these positions (a doubtful, but possibly accurate proposition), then your implication that the lack of other candidates could provide a relatively neutral explanation for voter decisions would seem to be correct.
Meanwhile, how about my other point – can you point to any language in Cory’s story that appears objectively to qualify as a pejorative statement about white men?
Ravnsborg dines with white sheriffs. Why does Cory feel the need
to identify by race. I thought we trying not to be racist.
I couldn’t find any county by county ethnic record, but according
to google, South Dakota is 86.2% white, 8.9% native american,1.7% black,
1.1% asian, and .1% pacific islander. Given that quite a few
native americans are concentrated on reservatons, I’m fairly
comfortable that my statement is correct.
“White men being the biggest terrorists in the country”.
Edwin, that’s the simple fact of the matter. You don’t like seeing it written there because you feel it’s unfair, tarring All White Men. Do you think that everyone believes All White Men are terrorists based on my recitation of the fact that white men are the biggest terrorists in the country?
Do you complain like this when the named demographic is POC or women? Just curious about the latter.
Because, Edwin, the turn of phrase is not only lovely but also representative of the ignorant, identity-based politics that allowed voters to ignore actual qualifications for the job and elect an incompetent who spent four years in campaign mode pandering to the fears of insecure and ill-educated white South Dakotans of an increasingly diverse America where their kind won’t enjoy the privilege of majority for much longer.
Illegal ammo and bombs in Willmar—all white criminals. Not that I’d want to generalize… but Ravnsborg didn’t hesitate to stoke fears of browner people with his little anti-ISIS slideshows in 2015.
Curious: what outreach is Ravnsborg doing for anyone other than his privileged and fearful white base depicted in Newland’s photo above? Is Ravnsborg the one playing identity politics, while the rest of us just ask for equal treatment of all?
White nationialists are so ignorant that they don’t even know Woody Guthrie was a Communist. Here are some real turds in action today. Disrupting an author describing his book “Dying of Whiteness: How the Politics of Racial Resentment is Killing America’s Heartland” Should be required reading of every white guy, step up Mr. Arndt, this is all about you and yours.
“White nationalists interrupted an author’s talk at Politics and Prose bookstore in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, chanting until they were booed out of the room.
Jonathan Metzl, a psychiatrist and director of Vanderbilt’s Center for Medicine, Health and Society, had begun a discussion of his book of “Dying of Whiteness: How the Politics of Racial Resentment is Killing America’s Heartland” on Saturday when he was interrupted by a group of people led by one man with a megaphone.
“You would have the white working class trade their homeland for handouts,” the man said. “But we, as nationalists and identitarians, can offer the workers of this country a homeland, their birthright, in addition to health care, good jobs and so forth.”
As they were booed by attendees, the white nationalists chanted “This land is our land” until they left the store.” TPM 04/28/2019
Insecure and ill educated white South Dakotans.
You just don’t learn, do you Cory?
Cory, do you want democracy with all its faults,
or do you want some other system?
That’s enough for this discussion.
Edwin, your question:
suggests you are either not reading or not understanding my comment to you at 2019-04-28 at 13:38.
I said that
If it appeared skin color could have been an important factor, then what language would you suggest to raise this issue?
Wouldn’t you agree that it would not be a good or acceptable fact if a law enforcement officer’s skin color was a factor that gave them an advantage over other possible candidates, making Cory’s inquiry entirely appropriate?
And if a group of people rely on skin color to identify who to vote for or who to associate with or who to pander to, doesn’t that say something negative (pejorative) only about that particular group, rather than every person who might be the same skin color of the members of that group?
For example, there is no dispute that the KKK is a racist organization that accepts and endorses only white members and white political candidates. Would criticizing the KKK’s views or the results of their behavior suggest or imply all white folks felt or behaved the same way?
If not, then how can criticism or questioning the motives and behavior of the Ravinsborg group or its members be interpreted to be a pejorative statement about white men that are neither members nor supporters of that Ravinsborg group?
Edwin got mad when I pointed out that most SD males of German heritage were stubborn, lacked innovation and had no sense of humor. Then, Edwin got mad when I pointed out that Catholics were raised in a culture that denigrates and denies women equality. Now, Edwin is mad because he happens to be among SD white, males who tend to be nationalistic and unable to accept those of other races, genders and culture as equals.
Maybe it’s you, Edwin. You don’t have to put yourself into these groups just because you have the opportunity. You don’t have to get mad because most German heritage, Catholic, white males have recognized traits of social disfunction. You can choose to be just Edwin.
Well, one more time.
Bear, if you read Cory’s post at 15:53 you will see that he meant it
to be pejorative.
On elections, people vote for candidates for a variety of reasons, skin color,
gender, how the candidate holds his or her left hand. A lot of votes can’t
be morally or intellectually justified but a vote can be cast for any reason.
Jerry, nobody requires me to read anything. I’m presently reading a book on
Winston Churchill by Andrew Roberts. I’m at page 120 and it runs over 900 pages.
Since we plan to start planting corn tomorrow I’ll be lucky to finish it by Christmas.
The next book on my list is “The devils chessboard”. It’s a book about John Foster
Dulles and his brother Allen Dulles. John Foster Dulles was Eisenhower’s
Secretary of State and his brother Allen ran the CIA. Should be interesting
stuff. As soon as i get that finished I promise to try to get to “The politics
of racial resentment”.
Now, Porter. I’m so glad you posted. I had no idea I was in such bad shape.
Where do you think I should go for help?
As for Germans being stubborn, a lot of people become stubborn because
they have had to overcome a lot of adversity. I really draw no line between
being stubborn, persistence, and perseverance. As for innovation, we accept it
when it has been proven. Sense of humor. We have a sense of humor but
you have to be fairly intelligent to understand it. As for equals, we have
few equals. (Humor, Porter).
In all candor, I’m pretty comfortable with who I am, just being Edwin.
I shall simply have to limp along as best I can, social disfunction and all.
That’s it for sure.
If you’re comfortable why do you defend universally recognized deviant behavior?
This, right here, is a great example of Mr. H’s out-of-state name-callers and the rude bloggings will prevent Mr. H from ever being elected in South Dakota*
* grudznick does not discount the posibility of Mr. H serving on a water district again, or even a road district or some other entity smaller than a school board or city subcommittee.
Edwin is not overly sensitive or upset, nor are his feelings hurt. The problem is how several different people say things, but Edwin doesn’t have a problem.
There you go folks. Did I wrap it up well enough?
Mr. Lansing, thank you for your goat and your acknowledgment that Ms. Geelsdottir has bad behavior. I will eat one of those frozen pizza pockets you invented now to celebrate. You were indeed a fine cook.
Got a rise out of ya, didn’t I? You just can’t not respond. Try again next time.
Advantage Lansing …..
Edwin, at your suggestion I re-read Cory’s comment at 15:53. There he mentioned,
But I didn’t see any reference to “white man,” pejorative or otherwise. And he didn’t assert that all white people are fearful, insecure and ill-educated – only those who might vote for someone based on skin color.
So you are going to have to help me out. In your comment at 2019-04-26 at 09:21 you stated:
Since this was before Cory’s comment at 15:53 it seemed clear you were referencing his original article where he said,
I commented that I saw no pejorative comments about “white men,” nor pejorative use of the term “white man” anywhere in Cory’s article. I asked what language you relied upon for your assertion.
Since I can’t find such language and since you have apparently been unable to identify such language, can you agree that your initial accusation about Cory’s supposed use of “white man,” or a similar reference, as a pejorative was simply mistaken?
Cory will sometimes write comments I disagree with and I will call him out, so I can understand where you would be coming from had he actually made the comment that you claimed, but in this case it appears he did not.