Who would not eat a sandmitch with Jayne?
l3wis 
2010
Lame.
Ghost of Dude Â
I wasn’t aware of this, but it seems you can improve a team’s success by changing their mascot to a more menacing animal. In light of this new discovery, the Sioux Falls Canaries will now be called the Sioux Falls Fighting Pheasants. Take THAT Wichita Wingnuts! Your days of intimidating the lowly Canaries with whimsical alliteration are over!
Granted, the new name does better reflect the local (imported) wildlife. But other than different uniforms and letterhead, what’s the difference? Will the games be any more fun to watch – especially from the right-field party zone – now that we have a new mascot? Doubtful. Will the league expand to more than five or six teams so there’s a little variety to the opponents? Not likely. Will the team break into the real MLB farm team system so we can see future all-stars instead of the odd has-been? That would be nice. In fact, all the changes mentioned above would be great, and a real improvement to our local sports scene. But all of them are difficult. Changing a name is easy. I wonder which changes local baseball fans would prefer.
I know what I’m going to do in honor of the new name. Tonight, I will take the last two pheasants out of my chest freezer, thaw them, cover them in bacon, stuff them with garlic, onions, and peppers, and roast them at about 300 degrees in a pan with about an inch of beer in the bottom until delicious.
Now there’s something I can cheer for.
HB 1255 Passes Committee (ending the food tax)
UPDATE: More Games
After such a nice victory in Taxation Committee this morning, a move led by Rep.Faehn in the House this afternoon has now sent HB1255 to Appropriations Committee on Monday morning for its next vote, rather than the full House. So here we go. Your contacts were  wonderful to the last committee. Let’s convince this one too! The people need this tax shift.
If you need any further inspiration, read this from Matt Gassen, Director of Community Food Banks of SD (which distributes food to over 500 agencies in SD)
“No other tax so directly takes food off the family table as the current 4% state tax on food items. To shift the tax off food as proposed in HB 1255 could be one of the single most significant pieces of legislation to impact the hungry of South Dakota in a long time. With the continuing increase in the numbers of individuals (78,000 statewide) seeking emergency food assistance a recent study shows that 32% choose between buying groceries and paying for utilities or heating fuel, 29% choose between food and rent/mortgages and 32% choose between food and gas for their cars. The passage of this bill would make the family budget go farther and increase the amount of food that their grocery dollars would buy. It could also help to ease the strain on emergency feeding programs who are struggling to find enough food to help all those in need.”
Next to house floor – needs 2/3 vote
HB1255 is a revenue-neutral tax shift. The state comes out even with the shift from the 4% state portion of food tax to 3/10% on non-food sales. It is revenue-neutral for the state, but middle- and lower-income people will be better able to afford their basic needs. Better than refund programs. The benefit comes right at the grocery store, to reduce hunger, and improve health and family financial stability.
What about the argument that taxing food provides the state a “stable source of revenue”? This is a line of reasoning from a time when the economy was better, and the worry was that when times get tough, at least there would be revenue coming from grocery purchases. Well, times are tough. This is the down time. Making a revenue-neutral tax shift when the economy is down would take the worry out of taking tax off food. This is the time to make the shift. The issue will continue until the tax comes off food, so legislators would be wise to do it now. (Does this make sense? There should be a more concise way to explain it.)
Thune doesn’t like to blow ‘Happy Smoke’ but he doesn’t have a problem with bullshit (H/T – Helga)
Ironic Johnny, you sooo funny;
WASHINGTON—Lawmakers in both parties are contemplating for the first time the possibility that the Republicans might recapture the Senate this year, though it’s an uphill climb in which the GOP would have to win states that have recently been inhospitable to the party.
Republicans’ prospects are surging, driven by an electorate deeply dissatisfied with Washington, the economy and incumbents. And the surprise retirement announcement from Sen. Evan Bayh (D., Ind.) Monday on the heels of a host of other bad news for Democrats is prompting party leaders to take a fresh look at the Senate landscape.
Because Democrats hold a 59-41 voting majority in the Senate, Republicans would have to gain 10 new seats and retain all of their own to gain control.
In swing states such as Arkansas and Nevada, Democratic incumbents are facing fierce headwinds. Democratic retirements have handed the GOP unexpected opportunities in places like North Dakota and now Indiana. In Democratic strongholds such as Illinois and Delaware, Republicans are running strong campaigns.
The question is whether the GOP can add to that list. Emboldened by their recent victory in Massachusetts, Republicans have begun looking at states that tilt Democratic like California, Wisconsin, Washington and New York.
“It all comes down to the candidates,” said Sen. John Thune (R., S.D.). “If you have good candidates, states like California and Washington can be put in play.” Mr. Thune played down the chances of a Republican takeover—”we don’t want to blow too much happy smoke out there yet”—but voiced cautious optimism about the Republicans’ political fortunes.