PCM

You simply can't pigeonhole people based on which party they belong to or whether they call themselves liberal or conservative. My mother has been a card-carrying Republican for most of her life, but also considers herself a pro-abortion feminist. My sister is liberal, but is also a firm believer in a strong military and national security. My brother is very conservative, but hates Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. When I refer to myself as a conservative, some seem to think that means I march in lock-step with Rush Limbaugh and believe every word of the Bible, neither of which is true. There are probably a lot of issues on which Sioux-cia and I would disagree, but based on what she's written here, we'd probably also find common ground on other issues. And that's fine. It's what America's supposed to be about. If your viewpoint isn't shared by the majority, then you do what you can to convince, persuade, cajole and influence people to agree with you. You don't accuse anyone who disagrees with you of engaging in "hate speech." You don't claim that disagreement is the same as disrepect. You don't label people you don't even know as "hostile and abusive" for not sharing your opinion. And you don't cry "racism!" when you can't even convince the majority of members of your own race to agree with you. I'm often frustrated with the editorial positions of the Grand Forks Herald, but on Sunday, editorial writer Tom Dennis made some very astute observations about the Sioux name issue. He wrote: Dennis is exactly right. The NCAA has only polarized North Dakotans more and made the situation worse by engaging in coercion instead of persuasion. He also said: This is a unique aspect of North Dakota heritage that the NCAA obviously doesn't understand. Moving here from South Dakota, it took me several years of living in this state before I really understood how North Dakota's history continues to influence the thinking of North Dakotans today. The NCAA had no idea what it was in for when it decided to issue demands to us rubes out here in flyover country. They'll get more of a fight than they ever expected. Until that fight is over, I'm glad to have someone with Sioux-cia's perspective and eloquence as an ally.

I didn't mean for this to turn into a discussion about national politics. I brought up the civil war in Yugoslavia to illustrate an extreme example of what can happen when people choose to continually emphasize their differences and segregate themselves from those who aren't like them. I understand what mikejm and Bacardio are saying. The Sioux name issue is a microcosm of a larger problem.

It's a test pattern. I watch it all the time. Seriously though, it's usually an ad for an upcoming UND sports event. Maybe they run other types of ads, too. I just know that it's not very interesting unless there's a game on.

I wasn't suggesting that what happened in Yugoslavia could happen here. People in that part of the world had major problems before Tito forced them to cooperate at the point of a gun. As soon as communism crumbled, it was back to business as usual.

It makes perfect sense to me. I once worked with a man from the former Yugoslavia who told me in great detail how the situation in that country quickly went to hell when when each faction decided that it needed its own country which excluded others not like them. If you happened to be a Serb living in Croatia or Bosnia, you were suddenly a second-class citizen with no rights and, often times, no property and no job. When the Serbs responded in kind, they were accused of ethnic cleaning, which they were doing. But the same types of things the Serbs were doing to Bosnians and Croats in Serbia were also being done to Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia. That's why it turned into such a bloody mess. Each faction was working so hard to rid its own little piece of the world of people who didn't share the same religion or ethnic background. My friend knew this for a fact because his father, mother and sister who were from Montenego (not Serbs) were trapped in Croatia. His father's job, apartment and car were taken away and given to Croats. My friend was once given permission to visit his relatives in Croatia. When he came back, he said that the TV and radio broadcasts there were nothing but hate-filled rants against the Serbs.

This excellent column by Wendy McElroy provides terrific insight on the true meaning of "cultural diversity" and its ultimate goals. A White Oppressor? Who Me?

Not to sound like a paranoid Sioux fan or anything, but this just might be the year that the WCHA decides to crack down on obstruction.

So that wasn't Cotton Hill?

To me, that was bigger than winning the Frozen Four. I mean, c'mon! The Sioux absolutely demolished an entire team of 28-year-old CANADIANS!!!

Hakstol said on media day that he thought Smaby was UND's best defenseman during the playoffs. I certainly wouldn't argue the point.

That's one side of the issue that never seems to be discussed. The feelings of those offended or hurt by UND's use of the Fighting Sioux name must always be considered, but the feelings of the UND athletes who gave their blood and sweat and risked their health to compete as members of the Fighting Sioux family are simply tossed aside as if they don't matter.

It looks like we're in for an entire season of "Don't you have anything better to do?" between Sioux and Gopher fans.

From Our Sports Central: These former Sioux are "Fighting" mad It's nice to see former players carrying the torch for UND. I'm not sure where Bryan Lundbohm got his information about FSU and the Supreme Court. Maybe he was thinking about the 2000 presidential election.

Too bad the WCHA never figured that out.

You should raise your standards.

Huh? According to what Chanellor Potts said on WDAZ last week, all members of the current board stand by the decision made in 2001 requiring UND to use the Sioux name and logo. Until Kupchella asks them to revisit the issue, there will be no change. I'm not sure how you interpret that as "total backpedaling."

Oops. I mean tomorrow night. Damn senility.

Here's a column by Richard Baehr from The American Thinker published back in March before the NCAA came out with its policy on American Indian names and mascots. It was inspired when Illionois' mascot Cheif Illiniwek wasn't allowed to appear at the NCAA Final Four.

Yes, but UNC-Pembroke's case, the NCAA took into account the fact that it was founded as an American Indian school. Never mind that it no longer is and that blacks now outnumber Native Americans at UNC-P. I wonder what will happen if the African Americans say that they're offended by the current name?

SKIPPY ALERT!

Just exactly how many votes does Barry Melrose get?

Also don't forget that all three probably get some generous campaign contributions from organizations outside of North Dakota that would prefer to see UND dump the Sioux name. I'm glad that Conrad, Dorgan and Pomeroy are now all publicly on record as supporting UND on the name issue. While I would have prefered it sooner rather than later, their support can still do some good. The only thing I didn't like was Conrad's partisan swipe at Hoeven.

From The Temple News: Mascot policy further muddles stereotype issue The writer has some of the facts wrong, but still reaches the correct conclusion.

I was probably among those who roasted you. It would have been nice if Conrad, Dorgan and Pomeroy would have immediately shown solidarity with UND on this issue, but I didn't think it was necessary at the time. However, the longer they went without saying anything, the more it helped the NCAA and hurt UND. That's why I think it's disingenuous for Conrad to criticize state government when Hoeven did far more to help UND before the appeal was filed than any of the three members of the congressional delegation.

Shhhh! Saying things like that can get you banned on some message boards.