PCM

By the way, there's a pretty good chance that I won't be able to do next week's coaches' show, either.

Indian Country Today columnist Susan Harjo has announced her annual "Mantle of Shame" awards. Facts? Ms. Harjo don't need no stinkin' facts! At least UND is in good company. Russell Means got an award, too!

All it means is that Means is shooting his mouth off for a meanignless publicity stunt.

Hakstol mentioned that Kaip has played very well at center and that he had second thoughts about moving him to a wing. However, he also said that center is Oshie's natural position and having him there enables them to use his offensive and defensive talents more effectively. So it's not as if you're losing a center because you're moving Oshie to that position, which was Hak's preference at the start of the season.

I think you nailed it. I did catch a bit of the show tonight. Hak said that in practice, Oshie has been centering a line with Duncan and Kaip on the wings. That's right, Duncan and Kaip. Hak said it's worked very well in practice. It sounded as if there might be some changes in the defensive pairings, too.

Sorry, folks, but with Christmas fast approaching, I have too much to do and not enough time to do it all. If someone else wants to recap the show (assuming a hockey coach will be on), please feel free.

How many buildings have you built in Grand Forks?

It is possible for personal feelings, self-interest and bias to influence the outcome of any research, which is why the scientific community takes great pains to guard against it. Biased research is not credible research. Attempting to pass off obviously biased research as being scientifically objective is destructive to researchers and scientists because it damages their credibility in the eyes of the public. Let me state this once again because you clearly are not getting it. Nobody here who supports the Fighting Sioux nickname is claiming that their scientific research proves them right. We're not talking about your opinion. We're talking about Williams' alleged "scientific research."

Nobody is saying that except you. No Fighting Sioux nickname supporters are claiming to be more objective than Dana Williams. What Williams is doing that they're not doing is attempting to pass off his research based on recycled, seven-year-old data as if it's some new finding based on science. Contrary to how the Herald portrayed Williams, he quite obviously has a long, personal stake in the Fighting Sioux nickname issued based on his previous writings and associations. Why does that matter? Here's what the National Institutes of Health says about the need for objectivity in research:

I have to say that I really resent the myth that's often spread here that UND hasn't doesn't done enough to help the tribes in North Dakota. Could it do more? Certainly. Could it do better? Yes. But the idea that UND has done less than other schools is really bogus. From my perspective, the university has many programs on campus and on the reservations intended to benefit Native Americans and help solve some of the problems they face. I believe that UND hasn't gone out of its way to brag about those programs precisely because it didn't want to create the perception that they were tied in any way to the use of the Fighting Sioux nickname. As a result, UND is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. But nobody should think that the university hasn't made any real or significant efforts to reach out to the tribes because it has.

Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard that one reason Ralph Engelstad was able to build such a fabulous hockey arena in Grand Forks was because overall costs were lower here. I've heard the same thing about other buildings built on campus, ranging from laboratories to office space.

NOkotas. I explained in a previous post that I'd had my fill of horses by age 5. So, no, I don't own any horses and I don't have a stable. That doesn't stop me from thinking the Fighting Nokotas would make a cool name and logo. I have to admit that the University of North Dakota Stubborn Beagles does sound good, though.

I have accepted that the Fighting Sioux nickname is probably gone. That doesn't mean that I suddenly accept the rationale of Dana Williams or any of the other nickname opponents. Their arguements are just as weak as they've always been. Fortunately for them, they've gained leverage against UND through the University of Minnesota. So it's not that they're suddenly making sense. It's that they've found an ally they didn't have before and they've succeeded in using it to turn the tide.

I'll bet they have a Nokota in the driveway.

What's the problem? They obviously run a very tolerant and diverse campus at SCSU.

He retired.

Thanks, but I think this USCHO opinion piece, although somewhat dated, goes straight to the heart of the Forum story.

Here is the Alan Borovoy column from the Calgary Herald to which David Warren refers. Here's a "be careful of what you wish for" column on Borovoy's human rights commissions by George Jonas.

The Forum has [url="http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=186399

I pointed that out a ways back.

That has a nice ring to it.

Wow. No kidding.

Over Easy Roosters?

No, that's not it at all. Williams' research is being presented in the news as if it's something new and different conducted by a man of science. There is nothing new about it, and Williams ability to conduct objective scientific research is clearly clouded by his personal involvement in the issue. Obviously, you don't mind having your intelligence insulted. I do.