PCM

In North Dakota, about 90 percent of the electricity generated is from coal and 10 percent is hydro from Garrison Dam. Therefore, non-fossil fuel generation is about as close to zero as it will ever get. The more remote the location of a wind farm, the more expensive transmission and maintenance costs become. That brings up another problem North Dakota has with respect to any form of energy generation. Geographically, the state is too far away from major of centers of population where most energy is consumed. (The state exports two-thirds of the electricity is produces.) The fact that electricity must be transmitted such long distances to the end user automatically adds to the cost of any energy generated in North Dakota.

But this means that wind actually doesn't replace any fossil-fueled generation. You still have to build the fossil-fueled plants to meet the peak demand on the days when the wind isn't blowing. Consumers must foot the bill for reliable energy sources as well as the unreliable ones. Unless wind energy becomes much, much cheaper than coal-based generation, it's difficult to see how you could make the economics work. Fossil-fueled plants are most efficient when they're running at or near their peak capacity. The more efficiently they run, the less expensive the electricity they generate becomes. Therefore, if you require the fossil-fueled plants to back off on their generation on the days when wind energy is plentiful, the electricity they generate becomes more expensive. I do believe that wind energy can and should be a larger part of the energy mix. However, anyone who touts it as a panacea for our energy and environmental problems is selling snake oil. Until we discover an economically feasible way to store energy, there's no way wind energy will ever replace a substantial portion of fossil-fueled generation. Also, anyone who thinks there are no environmental impacts from wind turbines is only fooling themselves. The more prevalent wind farms become, the more noticeable their impact on the environment will become. That isn't limited to the bird kill issue. It also includes noise pollution, visual pollution, land use problems and all the issues associated with transmission lines, which are considerable.

Parise is listed as 5' 11". That might be a bit of a stretch, but I'd say he's closer to that than 5' 9".

How about Airplane III?

Okay. We'll call it Gigli II.

I remember that a guy named Jake Brandt played in both games during the Wisconsin series, which wasn't all that long ago. Someone wearing number 30 who looked a lot like Jake was on the bench during the CC series. Other than that, I have no idea where he might be.

I'm waiting for the movie.

If NDSU wouldn't have left, there would have been no reason for UND not to sign. Once again, it is my pleasure to bring you the following educational public service announcement.

775-0000

Ever hear of "prairie pothole country?" Those are the wetlands where many migratory waterfowl nest during the warm months. The problem with birds is that they don't stay in the air all the time.

Funny you should mention that. When I drove to Bismarck a few weeks ago, it was around 20 below (air temp). The Infinity wind turbine could be seen for miles around -- and it wasn't moving! What a great advertisement for wind energy. On a day when the demand for electricity was near its peak, that fancy, high-tech wonder wasn't producing a single Watt. I've read a couple articles lately about the bird kill associated with wind farms. I believe there was a wind farm in California at which seven eagles had been killed in a year. What would happen if we put large numbers of wind farms throughout North Dakota, a primary route for migratory birds? Would we turn the state into one huge Salad Shooter for waterfowl? This guy makes some good points, too.

Alright, Otter (a.ka. Eric Stratton), rush chairman! I can handle that. I've always admired Otter's leadership abilities. Diggler's...err...Bluto's most famous speech. It's most appropriate right now.

Although conventional wisdom holds that the word "Sioux" means "snake" and was intended as an insult, not everyone agrees with that. Here's an excerpt from a letter to the editor by Larry Stammen of the UND Alumni Association that was printed in the Feb. 18, 1999, Grand Forks Herald.

You see, there are advantages.

You're missing the point. Let's try it this way with a hypothetical rewrite of the editorial I quoted above: Now I'm sure as a Duluth fan, you'd read such an editorial and think, "Oh, but that was all in good fun. We were just being enthusiastic fans helping our team. Brandt's a two-bit criminal punk and deserves every insult we can think up. He's fair game because he celebrates too much and the Sioux team and their fans always think they're so great. Plus, they play in that $200 million bunker that Ralph the Nazi built for them. Besides, this kind of stuff just goes with hockey. Anyone who objects is a thin-skinned wuss and should be watching shuffle board games instead." Do you think any of those Mexican soccer fans will apologize for what they said? No, they're just going to use the exact same excuses to rationalize their behavior that you'd use to justify the behavior of Duluth fans and that some Sioux fans use to excuse their boorish behavior. I am not saying that the "Osama! Osama!" chant is on the same level as "F__k the Gophers!" It's not. However, the reasons fans use to excuse their own behavior are exactly the same.

CC's Matt Zaba has a goalie coach.

The Sioux forgot to cover the CC D-men coming down the slot because the students weren't standing and swearing? My, this problem is much more serious than I thought.

I think that it must have been during the 2000 season.

The Jacks walked all over the Sioux in football a couple seasons ago at Hobo Day. I know because I was there.

That's the way you see it, but I'm sure they see it as good, clean sports fun and helping their team win by intimidating the opposition in any manner they can. And isn't this the exact same reason we're told that profane cheers should be allowed at the REA? Because it helps the team? I agree 100 percent with the editorial below. And while the fans' behavior at the Sioux hockey games has yet to set "a new standard for imbecilic sports fans," saying that we're not as bad as them certainly isn't much to be proud of, is it?

You can disagree all you want, but it certainly helps if you can argue from a position based on knowledge and informed opinion. I've lived in Grand Forks for 12 years. Every time the Sioux name issue or some controversey about Ralph Engelstad is raised, we are bombarded with news coverage and editorial commentary from all over the country. I've paid attention to those stories and have done a good deal of research and reading on the subjects beyond what we see and hear in Grand Forks. I also know how UND's Native American programs compare to SDSU's, which are essentially token efforts. I'll put what UND does that actually benefits Native Americans throughout the country up against SDSU's pathetic efforts in that area any day of the week. You're not the first Jackrabbit fan who's come here preaching to us about the Sioux name issue, believing that having a fuzzy bunny logo and supporting the empty symbolic gesture of changing the name somehow makes SDSU morally superior to UND. So go right on disagreeing all you want. But if you want to pick a fight on this issue, I'd advise you not to bring a pen knife to a gunfight.

March 4, 2002, Sports Illustrated: "Asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81% of Native American respondents said no." Somewhere along the way, SDSU apparently forgot to teach you about the concepts of democracy and freedom of speech. Personally, I have no desire to allow a minority of a minority dictate which words I can and cannot say.

In no way do I condone the behavior of the Mexican soccer fans. However, I find it ironic that while some people are offended by anti-American cheers by foreign sports fans, they see no reason why anyone should be offended by obscene cheers at Engelstad Arena. Can you say double standard?

And such criticism coming from the fan of SDSU, a university that does virtually nothing for Native Americans in comparison to UND, is the heighth of hypocricy.

Here's what I don't get. On Friday night, Blais praised the line of Lundbohm, Stafford and Porter, saying that they were the best line on the ice. I've heard Blais say on the coaches show that this time of the season, he'd like to be solidifying the lines and not shuffling them as much. So why is it on Saturday night, Lundbohm was centering a line with McMahon and Prpich, two primarily defensive players? And why, after playing center all season and being praised for his play at that position, was McMahon suddenly changed to playing a wing against CC? I'm sure Blais had his reasons for these moves. But I don't understand why, when a line played together so well on Friday night, you wouldn't keep them together on Saturday night.