PCM

Before you know it, you'll be self-annoying.

That's not that point. The point is that different people are offended by different things. And different people have different levels of what triggers whether or not something offends them. For example, I see programs on Comedy Central and M-TV that offend me, but I don't demand that they be banned. I simply turn them off, recognizing that what's entertainment to someone else might not be entertainment to me. I don't go around purposely trying to offend anyone. But I do reserve the right to determine for myself whether people who say they're offended by something are reasonable to feel that way. I reserve the right to ask: Why are you offended? If the answer I get isn't convincing, then I reserve the right to say: You're not being reasonable. Thanks. I'll do the same for you. Ideally, if everyone thought alike and believed in the same things, your perfect world might be attainable. Unfortuantely, in free society, we must learn to tolerate diverse views and opinions. And I certainly don't buy the idea that just because someone is a certain race, he or she has the right to ban offending words and images from public use.

Word of pilot's death hitting home in Wahpeton, ND Investigation under way by NTSB; may take up to a year A pilot describes how the accident happened in this article from the Fond du Lac Reporter. Here's the Forum's story. I didn't know Beck, but I certainly admired his work in building and restoring warbirds. My heart goes out to his family and all those who knew him. Last month, I took photos during the air show in Fargo of what I believe were both Mustangs involved in the Oshkosh crash. Beck's P-51A Odegaard's P-51D

What I want is to live in a nation in which my constitutionally guaranteed right of free expression isn't trampled by your invented right to be offended. And public officials? Do you honestly believe that they are the only ones who are unconvinced by the arguments of the easily offended? UND isn't suing the NCAA because a few public officials are stubborn or decided it would be a fun thing to do. It's being done because UND students and alumni - not to mention a majority of North Dakotans (and possibly even American Indians) - believe it's the right thing to do.

You are the one introducing "rights" into the issue which is a legal concept. The tribes have every right to object to UND's use of the Fighting Sioux nickname. But they have no right to stop UND from using a word and images in the public domain that the tribes themselves use to promote their athletic teams and other activities. If such a right existed, the courts would have ruled against UND long ago. If UND finds the tribes' arguments compelling and decides that ending the use of the nickname and logo are in the best interest of the university, then UND has the right to do so. It also has the right to reject the arguments if they're unconvincing or unreasonable. You believe the Fighting Sioux nickname is morally wrong, even though the vast majority of American Indians have no problem with the word "redskin" being used as a sports team name. Is it possible that what you consider "morally right" is simply your opinion and that there is no true right or wrong answer?

How so?

What matters is whether the minority of a minority can claim ownership of words and images in the public domain and engage in race-based censorship of free expression. You seem to be okay with that. I am not.

Ignoring the NCAA's own rules, procedures, constitution and bylaws to sneak a policy the members didn't even vote on through the back door is "courageous"? You and I have different definitions of the word.

Kupchella said in one of his statements that the NCAA was well intentioned. I believe that's true. However, I think Brand and the executive committee were operating with the idea that the end goal justified the means. They took lack of opposition from the general membership as tacit permission to depart from standard procedure. They believed that simply because the all-powerful NCAA told a few schools that they must comply with the policy or else, those schools would do as ordered. I believe Brand and the executive committee enacted the policy with the idea that they wouldn't grant any exemptions and that nobody would dare sue the NCAA over it. I believe most NCAA members didn't lift a finger to stop Brand because dealing with the issue by a wink and a nod was far safer than formally enacting a policy that, in effect, declared an end to the NCAA's written principle giving schools autonomy to deal with matters of discrimination. Most college administrators are aware of skeletons in their schools' closets. They know that every day, their schools are one incident away from an explosive controversy. To officially go on record by pointing self-righteous fingers at other members while spouting holier-than-thou platitudes about social justice opens them up to the same sort of accusations down the road.

It would seem to be a no-brainer. So why didn't they?

Relax. Nobody's going to ban you for disagreeing. I would have been banned years ago if that happened.

Exactly. The NCAA routinely has its members vote on policies of far less importance. The idea that trashing the organization's constitution and bylaws was necessary to save time and money is laughable.

Thanks for the link! Good interview! The pink hair threw me at first, but I eventually figured it out.

I don't know what a jury might award. I would think that the judge would instruct the jury to award something within reason. However, some seem to assume that if North Dakota wins only on the procedural aspect of its case, the NCAA will simply turn on its heel and get its members to approve an air-tight policy, which is what it should have done in the first place. It's not that simple. If the state wins because the NCAA didn't follow its own procedures, a jury is likely to view the organization as "arbitrary and capricious," in breach of its contract with UND and may believe that the NCAA didn't deal with UND in good faith. Jurors may feel that UND's reputation was damaged as a result of the NCAA's handling of the matter. What sort of amount might the jury award in damages if that happens? Might the jurors feel that they need to send a message to the NCAA and its members?

Certainly it does. You accused me assuming too much. I assumed nothing other than that outcomes other than those that you envision are possible. You don't know that they aren't, and neither do I. Wrong. Unlike you, I don't pretend to know what the outcome will be one way or the other. Judges tell parties to settle out of court all the time. Doesn't mean it will happen. Which assumes that UND will win on the procedural grounds and no other. Which assumes that UND will not receive damages if it wins on procedural grounds. Which assumes that UND won't win on the anti-trust portion of its lawsuit. I asked you if the lawsuit could still be considered a "lose-lose" for UND if those things happened. All you have done is duck the question and obfuscate the issue.

I said "what if?" Unlike you, I'm assuming nothing.

Perhaps it's not as easy as you assume. If the trial's outcome determines that the NCAA owes UND millions in damages, was it worthwhile? If UND prevails on the anti-trust portion of its lawsuit, was it worth it? You are assuming too much.

I'm sure it is for a supreme court justice such as yourself.

I know a former dishwasher...

Close. Betty and Barney.

I visited the naval aviation museum in Pensacola when my brother was stationed at Eglin in the mid-90s. They had the Blue Angels old A-4 Skyhawks on display hanging from the ceiling. The F/A-18 Hornets are cool, but I sure wish I could have seen a performance in the Skyhawks. To me, they just seem like a natural fit for aerobatics. Have a good time at the show. I'm sure that watching the Blue Angels perform from a 38-foot cat will be more enjoyable than watching the "sho" while standing in Hector's soggy grass.

My parents? You make me feel so...young!

The made color Pong? How'd I miss that?

I had one of those, too. But I got my start with Pong.