In January, Governor Kristi Noem babbled something about having an “aggressive” plan for economic development to help South Dakota families (she made no mention of what she would do for orphans, widows, and single people, because “families” makes her sound warmer and fuzzier than “people” or “residents”).
Even the SDGOP spin blog finds the use of “aggressive” to describe economic development policies contrived and ridiculous:
“Aggressive Economic Growth Policies?” Does anyone use that in normal conversation? Is he going to stab someone when advocating for lower taxes or something? [Pat Powers, “Campaign Lit Review—Aaron Aylward for District 6 House. The Picture on the Back Is Nice…,” Dakota War College, 2020.02.09]
Powers probably issues this critique only because the person who used the term aggressive to describe economic development policies was not a sponsor of his blog or a customer of his campaign propaganda design service. But aggressive is a silly, misapplied term for economic development policy.
So far the only aggression we’ve seen from the Governor’s office is against education, civil rights, county governments, environmentalists, and skunk and opossum. And the aggression of Republican legislators against a wide array of Americans will likely undermine any effort the Governor may make to bring new people and new opportunities to South Dakota.
I object to profaning an image of beloved icon Julia Child with the face of Rodeo Barbie.
Chris S. – I was going to say that, too. One of the greatest cooks in American history, often called a chef but she never worked a day for pay in a restaurant. She along with James Beard were iconic culinary teachers.
Aggressive plan for economic development?
LEGALIZE CANNABIS FOR CRAP SAKES !
Not to mention, that I personally
would really enjoy watching The
Dope Queen of Delusion’s head
Kristi’s sole drive is to obtain political power. If she does that, she’s successful. It doesn’t matter to her what else happens.
For all the talk from Klueless Kristi and the SDGOP about tourism and getting people to return to SD to live, it sure seems like the only place their “aggression” is really aimed, is at driving people out. Look at all the bills that are anti whatever or weakening rights. Now that’s aggressive!
I duly note Chris’s objection and sharp eye. ;-)
Speaking of passive/aggressive, Juanita Jean had this today……
But, if you’re not ready for that, Texas is here to help.
Two Texas zoos are ready to help you with every passive-aggressive instinct you’ve ever had.
The San Antonio Zoo and the El Paso Zoo are both running campaigns through Valentine’s Day to dedicate a cockroach after an ex and have it fed to an animal.
The El Paso event is free, but donations are suggested, while San Antonio’s costs $5 per roach.
The best part? You don’t have to live in either city. Both zoos are offering the chance for people to see all the munching action on their social media streams.
Here is the link for Mike’s fine find:
How many insects will be named for the Rottenest Roach of All?!? I’m putting in my vote for the #1 Pestiferous Pukeface!
My son (a fifth generation South Dakotan) fled at age 19 for California. He will be 34 this summer and he and his family are coming home. Not to South Dakota though. They will be living across the border in Minnesota. Minnesota has programs that help my disabled grandson. South Dakota doesn’t. Minnesota invests in education. South Dakota doesn’t. Minnesota doesn’t want everyone packing heat and carrying a christian bible. Minnesota doesn’t want to get rid of everyone who isn’t straight, white, male, christian and rich. South Dakota, well, you get the picture. Hard to believe just one state away people live in the real world while No Show and her ilk keep dragging us back to the 19th century. The upside is Minnesota is much closer than California when if comes to seeing my grandsons. The downside is South Dakota is missing out on an amazing young man who will do whatever it takes not to return to the state where he was born. Thanks Republicans.