Done in by rumors, and rumors alone. Bob Sahr announces he's done with elective politics.
According to the associated press this morning, Bob Sahr announcs that he's done with elective politics and doesn't expect to run again:
The thing is, I have no idea of the truth or untruth of the rumors being bandied about. Personally, I have a lot of doubts given the manner in which they were made, but in either case - pro or con - I lack evidence.
Most reporters I talked to called it an issue of "ripeness." Until proof was offered, I was told there was simply no story yet.
So, in the political theatre that is South Dakota, apparently that little requirement is no longer necessary. *Whew!* That's a burden off of my shoulders. I had been operating under the assumption that achieve a threshhold of credibility, a person had to document factual information and reliable sources. Apparently not.
I guess all anyone ever needs now is a mailing list (with the Argus Leader on the list), a blank piece of paper and a copy machine to destroy your opponent's careers.
The thing is, at any given time there are rumors running around on candidates - some accusations even rising to the level of criminal activity. But it had been a pretty standard practice in the past to wait until any sort of proof arose before the accusations were made.
No more. It's simply not required at the present. And that's a shame.
On another topic, did you hear the one about the Democratic Senator who kicks puppies? Dear Argus Leader....
Read it all here, and have a personal moment of silence for knowledge of truth being a requirement before accusations are thrown. "Truth," alas. We hardly knew ye.The chairman of the state Public Utilities Commission, Bob Sahr, says he likely will not run again for public office after serving with the agency since 2001.
He plans to leave the PUC sometime before the end of the year to become general counsel for East River Electric Power Cooperative in Madison.
Sahr decided at the last minute not to run for another six-year term this year - a decision he based on what he calls untrue rumors being spread about him.
The thing is, I have no idea of the truth or untruth of the rumors being bandied about. Personally, I have a lot of doubts given the manner in which they were made, but in either case - pro or con - I lack evidence.
Most reporters I talked to called it an issue of "ripeness." Until proof was offered, I was told there was simply no story yet.
So, in the political theatre that is South Dakota, apparently that little requirement is no longer necessary. *Whew!* That's a burden off of my shoulders. I had been operating under the assumption that achieve a threshhold of credibility, a person had to document factual information and reliable sources. Apparently not.
I guess all anyone ever needs now is a mailing list (with the Argus Leader on the list), a blank piece of paper and a copy machine to destroy your opponent's careers.
The thing is, at any given time there are rumors running around on candidates - some accusations even rising to the level of criminal activity. But it had been a pretty standard practice in the past to wait until any sort of proof arose before the accusations were made.
No more. It's simply not required at the present. And that's a shame.
On another topic, did you hear the one about the Democratic Senator who kicks puppies? Dear Argus Leader....
Comments
And if no one is talking about it, is it even a rumor?
(If a tree falls in the woods...)
Apparently not, indeed. The whole system supporting the prohibition of (some) psychoactive substances has almost NEVER documented factual information and reliable sources (remove the "almost" if we're talking about cannabis only).
Even PP, in his opposition to Initiated Measure 4 (safe access to therapeutic cannabis), offers only a statement that current SD law makes cannabis possession illegal (yes, true, and that's what initiatives are about, PP). Note that PP has not offered a single relevant fact (or even a rumor) to support his opposition to allowing sick, disabled and dying people safe access to medicine that works for them.
My point here is that there remains no public and credible information on who was investigated and for what. And based on no information, judgement has been passed.
We've all heard the rumors. All I'm asking for are some documented facts.
Darn, I missed the rumors. What were they anyway?
More seriously, dirty politics is dirty politics whether it is in the Democratic Party, The Republican Party, or some religion, or even a local PTA.
Of course, I remember hearing a Mitchell,SD highschool teacher telling her government class that she "knew George McGovern was a communist" and an ad in the Rapid City Journal had George McGovern's head in the crosshairs of a rifle scope.
The question with any relevance might be, "Can we control political speech and if so, How do we do it?"
10:43, spending account? What the heck are you talking about, and unless you are someone who likes to get dirty, sometimes leaving the playground, staying out of the mud, and moving on is best for all including your family. You can take the average political job w/its limited pay and high degree of crap if you ask me.
Anon.
History has certainly upheld her assertion.
Why do you think the prohibition on drugs is any better than the prohibition on alcohol?
Huge foreign drug cartels and organized crime in the United States have been empowered, people are turning to smaller amounts of more powerful drugs to avoid being apprehended, quality of drugs is uncertain as it is impossible to press charges of negligence or fraud, and a certain sexiness is added to doing drugs.
Ending the prohibition on drugs would drastically reduce violent crimes associated with drugs. The same violence existed with black market alcohol sales. Now, it does not. What do you think helped to establish the mafia?
Education, not prohibition, is the answer to stopping drug use and abuse. Check out the arguments against booze from early last century. They are the same as yours (and are equally illogical).
And we all know drugs are bad for you, the question is whether or not prohibition is having a positive or negative effect. Can you cite any studies saying the prohibition on drugs is cost-effective much less a net benefit to Americans?
I'm equally sure you can not find credible sources pointing to the "gateway" theory. My theory is that wearing blue jeans leads to drug use. After all, don't nearly all drug users have a history of blue jeans use?
And what does "affecting the learning ability of youth" have to do with cannabis' use in therapy?