Flatland

Actually, I don't quite think I made my point. The fact is that those positions (bartenders, barbers) would stop existing because people would refuse to pay for them. Many of those jobs do not need to exist. They exist because people want things. There are some needs to be filled obviously, but most jobs would be eliminated. If the government adjusted it's tax code to redistribute wealth (so that the minimum wage was $50K), then where is my incentive to go through college and get a degree for a job that would normally pay, say $55K? This is a definite way to create a permanent lower class. There will be a glut of workers who would rather be paid the $50K than go through college. As a result, you would loose many educated workers that the US economy needs to compete in the international market. Actually, the ones who actually did go through college would probably wind up with even higher salaries because of a low supply of educated personnel. This would widen the salary base even more than we have now and would very likely make your problem (a more evenly distributed income) worse. As a continuation, you might say, "Then the government will determine a base salary for any job to prevent this from happening." This will create a shortage and there will be a lack of people to do the job. I would imagine at this point that a significant black market would start to pop up to compensate for government interference similar to the one that operated in the old Soviet Union.

So if everyone is entitled to ~$50K a year, you are willing to pay increased costs for this? Could you imagine all of the restaurants that would shut down? Any industry that relies heavily on labor would be forced to shut down (or move somewhere else). The prices for any type of service would go up significantly. You would force the poorest of us to pay more for the basics. I would have to change my own oil and cut my own hair. (Fortunately, I'm losing it, so that problem will go away. ) The fact is that the market sets the price. Doctors are paid more because there are not very many of them. A bartender is not paid very much because there are a lot of people who can do the job.

NDSU grad is completely correct. I'll add on top of it that anytime the government tries to help out, it always back fires against the American consumer. (Great Depression, 70's gas shortage, etc.) Ultimately, the only people that can be blamed are the individual consumers. Gas prices are only high because we use so much. The good thing is that when prices become too high, alternatives start to be developed. My biggest problem with the government is that they mess up the "free market" with regulation. Granted there are times when it is necessary, but in many cases, particulary in regards to nuclear energy, regulation is ridiculous. This ultimatly causes energy prices to be unncessarily high. (as an example, if nuclear cannot be used, more people will be forced to use alternatives like natural gas which of course comes from oil.) If you want something to be done, then I would suggest riding a bike more often or buying a smaller car or moving closer to your job or whatever... there are lots of options.

Next time though, it would be nice not to have to listen to the "racist mascot" cheer. Not very classy. Before the Denver/Wis. game I didn't know who to cheer for, but that changed quickly. I even heard it during the Denver/Wisco game. Now my opinion of Badger fans isn't very high. Heard the chant both nights in different sections of the arena.

Anyone who thinks that the oil companys are ripping off the public should do what any good capitalist should do... Start an oil company. Oh... and you can't come back here and complain that government regulations and taxes make it too difficult to be competitive.

There is nothing like a salami grinder and dew at the pepper at 12:30am after hockey. (Don't forget extra sauce!)

Just got back from the game... The defense in this game had nothing to do with the players performing. I was very frustrated for about 3 qtrs watching the matchup of the UND defense against the Mankato offense. It was like I was watching some sort of prevent defense the whole game. There was no pressure on the quarterback (most of the time only 3 pass rushers) until the coaches finally mixed it up in the 4th quarter (after going down by 10)and went with a different defensive package. For most of the game, King had all the time in the world. Actually, if King would have been a little more patient, it might have resulted in an extra TD. Short passes were open all the time. Also, it was obvious that Mankato was doing reasonably well stopping the run and I figured that good things might happen when UND came out on the field (down by 10) and started with 5 WRs. The bottom line is that I feel that UND was lucky to get away with the win, but the total lack of flexibility to adjust to the field conditions and a different team leave me worried that UND will have problems in the future.

Doggoneit, I thought I was the furthest away (although I had to think about it.) Originally from Watford City, went to UND, moved to MN, transferred to Chiang Mai, Thailand and I've been here for about 15 months. When 2 yrs are up, will move back to the US, but I don't know where. I would like to go back to N. Dakota, but I don't think that it's likely.

in the opposite direction. I was bored at work today so I starting readng articles put out by different name change groups (most of it tied to SCSU). Their articles only pushed my stand on the issue further away from their viewpoint. One thing that is brought up is how they say that nobody would name a team the Whites or the Negros. However, what if major league baseball decided to bring in a team that called themselves the Negros which is named after the athelets from the Negro League? Of course, uniformed people would be shocked at the name. Actually, a better example would be to think about what if this team has been in the major leagues for 70 years now. (The Negro league existed into the 50's) What would have happened? Based on the history of the Negro league, I would think that it would be severly offensive to change the name from Negros to something else. (I have a feeling someone is going to flame me for this.) Maybe there should be a baseball team named the Hispanics. There isn't much difference between this and a hockey team called the Canadiens. The only reason nobody picks the whites as a team name is because it is too generic. A team called the whites leaves me with no feeling, but if you say your team is the Vikings, Scots, Irish, etc, etc... only then can I link a feeling with the name. Even the term Dakotan is now too generic. Who would I think of? The native american or a farmer? We always link names back to ethnicity so we understand why a university would choose the name. Anyways, call me a racist, I don't care. I don't see how anyone in these arguments can avoid that label regardless of what side you are on. I'm just tossing some thoughts around.

It's ok to be hostile and abusive to UND, UND alumni, and students; but not to native americans.

Score anyone?

Sorry, but I can't let this slide. "Fear and Speculation" is not what runs the conservative movement. Conservatives have a strong moral base (abortion, gay rights, etc) along with strong feelings with fiscal responsibility. Some items like welfare even mix the moral standards with finances. Democrats have been losing elections primarily because they have been seen as moving away from the conservatives moral base. Conservatives started winning elections in the 80/90's because of things like the "contract with America" when congress said that they were balancing the budget, etc. Republicans lost this campaign because of the ridiculous spending and Iraq. If democrats try to raise taxes (as the Republicans say they might) and this Iraq mess clears up then the GOP should be able to win back seats in 2008. I don't see the Democrats changing their moral positions anytime soon. I now return you to the currently scheduled forum.

Ditto here. IMHO, smack only hurts reasonable discussions among the other threads. (Turning decent discussions into flame fests)

Ummm.... Now I'm confused. I thought that this was a distraction caused by the NCAA months ago. This wasn't Kup's fault. Isn't Kup's distraction being caused by the NCAA's distraction? The NCAA isn't supposed to be legislating individual school's policies. I seem to remember something about the NCAA standing for National Collegiate Athletic something or other. Also, if only a few people are offended by these symbols, why are we talking about it here; and why does the NCAA even care? Wouldn't they just say that they are staying out of it?

$3000?... Now, that's funny. I also don't know how many times this needs to be said, but UND still does have approval from the nearest tribe. Just because they refuse to talk to both sides, doesn't mean that has changed.

I never said UND would walk over the NCAA. People for the change keep saying that we think that, but any rational person would be foolish to think it would be "easy." I also said that the NCAA probably fills immune to lawsuits because of previous wins. They overlooked most of the information in the appeals about anti-trust and said basically that they don't care. I would imagine that a lawsuit could be closely contested, but the case has already been made here over and over and in the local papers about the financial impact that would be caused. When you bring in the fact that the closest alternative to the NCAA has a significant reduction in revenue (and competition) to the university, anti-trust arguments start to creep in. There is a good reason that this hasn't been brought to court... It's called the NCAA appeals process. I know it was slow, but a university would look foolish not to first exhaust it's appeals. UND so far has the most to lose at this point anyway. Illinois gets to keep its name and I would think they may decide to let it go and make the few changes that are necessary. I would hope the speed in any potential lawsuit would proceed faster, but I don't expect it to happen quickly for my convenience.

Kup now has the opportunity to speak frankly and avoid all the necessary point-by-point arguments that he already made in the appeals, now that the NCAA has basically said they are done with their decisions. He spoke with very direct retoric that clearly shows the appeals weren't even considered. Basically, the NCAA never saw what they were looking for, which was approval from the tribes. They never seemed to consider the legalities of what they were doing which was one of the things UND showed in the appeals. Probably because the NCAA believe they are immune from a lawsuit. I'd be interested to see how UND lays the groundwork for this lawsuit. It's probably somewhere between anti-trust and free speech.

Yeah, I think something's going on today, but there would have to be major problems here before I give up on getting updates. Fortunately, the game starts just a little before I get to work here in the morning so it's a nice way to get through a Monday morning.

Holy smokes, the snake isn't at the game? Wow...

In order to make these comparisons, you have to tell us how a logo is keeping you from getting a job, preventing achievement, etc. Last I checked, I didn't think that native american's are being locked up anywhere.

Hey guess what! The name had nothing to do with my education either. Strangely enough though the name does motivate UND to sponser many already mentioned programs. These programs do draw native americans to the school as I personally know a few so to say the name does not provide opportunities for at least some native americans is ignorant. Unfotunately, I had to get by on my brain. What a bummer, eh? Also I don't know what you mean by posting about the Tribal College Journals. It looks like a good group, but seems completely unrelated to your point. Those are good schools founded by native american people, but I don't know why they would necessarily care about UND. The Fighting Sioux name seems a little out of their subject matter. (Apparently they have more important things to worry about.) As far as recruiting native american students, UND just has different opportunites to offer compared to these schools. Actually, speaking of being defensive and changing the subject somewhat... How come whenever we discuss issues on the reservations all we hear about (or at least most of what I see) is blaming it on americans or the american government or whatever? There are obviously groups working to improve the reservation and you are probably helping, but the situation is not improving (I do have firsthand experience... I'm not just quoting someone else.) I've seen references to treaties and such, but it's obvious that the american civilization and culture has outgrown all that. That's likely why native american's were granted citizenship in the 40's. It was obvious that the treaties were not entirely maintainable. The US government wants people to take care of themselves. (and so would I).

I've been hovering and watching this debate for some time. The sentiments of those wanting to change the logo and name are quite disheartening, and the tone I get from most pro-name change messages here on this board is that the values and morals of the peoples from the Midwest/NCAA/anywhere are still very closed-minded, full of hatred, racism and bigotry towards those different than themselves. Prove me wrong. Take an afternoon and read the appeals and rebuttal the UND has compiled. Then come back to this thread and tell us how the Sioux name is offensive. (Example: how does the name prevent native americans from moving up in the world when in fact the name is a catalyst to help many native americans succeed?) It may change how you look at this issue, it may not, but I feel that it will open your heart and mind to the nature of the people who live here now and who also respect those who lived here before us. Show a little respect, try to understand those on the other side of the issue as much as you can, before making a decison based upon only your interpretation of events. Thanks for taking the time to read this message, I hope that some of you will take the time now to do a little research of your own. I had to edit those comments because this argument has been going on for a long time. ("You're a racist!"... "No, you're a racist.") It's really easy to invert the comments in something like this and make the argument for the other side. It appears that either someone is wrong, or there are a lot of ignorant people on both sides. Probably both, but I'm not wrong.

What I think is interesting how GK can use the color of one's skin, facial features, etc. to define whether or not he is really a true native American. It's pretty obvious that over the next several generations the native American population will become more and more integrated into the American society. Currently, the reservations actually do a good job of maintaining cultural sovereignty; but this is likely only a small inhibiter to change. I guess the point I'm making is that GK's descendents, somewhere down the road, will likely look similar to Yttrium or myself. (I don't know what Yttrium looks like. ) This whole argument is going to seem rather silly in a couple generations. Some items which some people think are extremely important right now will fade if a large enough number of people do not care enough to carry those ideas on. Then we'll all say, "Why do we care about this?... Oh, nevermind... GO SIOUX!"