[New Study debunks global warming models]

Editor who published controversial climate paper resigns, blasts media.

Last month, we described how a paper that compared climate models to satellite readings had been blown out of proportion by a hype machine that was soon claiming the paper would "blow a gaping hole in global warming alarmism." However, even a cursory glance at the paper revealed that its claims were far more modest; other scientists who discussed the work indicated that problems with its analysis were already widely recognized. Now, the editor-in-chief of the journal that published the paper has considered these criticisms

[House Bill to Save the Sioux Passes 65 to 28.]

Thomas Jefferson Had NOTHING to do with the Constitution, wasn't even at the convention. Didn't actively support it. True, he did state revolution wasn't a bad thing. But Madison wrote the Constitution for the most part. With a big help from Franklin, appears again and offers the great compromise between the small and big states, so we have a senate and a house of reps. Compromise is these days of course a dirty word, too bad.

[House Bill to Save the Sioux Passes 65 to 28.]

The Constitution IS a wonderful thing. But don't forget that the man who wrote the US declaration of independance was an advocate of ripping up our Federal Constitution and starting over every 20 years (Thomas Jefferson). In my opinion what you are overlooking is the fact that just because there is a constitution in place, does not mean the contents are infallable. The people, both non-Native and Native have declared that we do not agree with this change. We are the same people whom the constitution was written FOR. And we are the same people who , through our voices and votes, are granted the power to oppose statutes, laws, - and yes - even the constitution of our governments (state or federal). Keeping the name will NOT be (has not been) easy... nor should it be. The constitution (state or federal) BY DESIGN should be diffucult to oppose or ultimately change. God forbid we see a day when the legislators do not listen to, our act on, the will of the people because the constitution is difficult to oppose or change . In my estimation that (to an extent) has been going on too often when it comes to this situation But now, with the passage of this bill in the House, it appears that maybe someone is listening.

Your arguement seems to be that this is unconstitutional - and it may be. To that I say - "that doesn't mean it is the wrong thing to do". I realize we are talking about the state constitution, but the principles governing the state and federal are the same. Now - do you think the Constitution of the U.S. (or our state constituion for that matter) is a STRONGER document or WEAKER document because there have been some ammendments (read: CHANGES) to it? I would say there are more than a few women, black americans, land owners, taxpayers, minorities and other citizens who are glad that someone decided along the way that just because something is difficult or unconstitutional doesn't mean it is not the right thing to do.

[North Dakota Roughriders?]

Roughriders has nothing to do with cowboys and indians... It's Teddy Roosevelt 's unit in Cuba during the Spanish American War. Seems a stretch to me historically speaking. But, then again the state flag, is that of the "Roughriders".

[North Dakota Roughriders?]

"Roughriders" is as bad, if not worse, than Calvary. Someone inform the tribal leaders that if they wish to avoid "cowboys and Indians" references and move into the 21st century, then don't go with Roughriders.

Sheesh. Do we really need to go through this? I just can't take it anymore.