There isn’t much of a mystery on who the troops liked.

The editorial raised a second issue, suggesting that the arena’s own special effects contribute to this suspension of civility.

Hodgson, and most of those who commented on Thursday’s editorial, rejected this idea. The in-your-face video highlights that the arena presents after the opposing team is introduced are standard fare in most arenas, I’m told.

Perhaps so.

But the reaction to the highlights reel raises an issue particular to UND, one related to the name and logo. UND’s opponents won’t respect the name and logo if their players aren’t respected here. The chants and taunts at UND hockey games show a lack of respect, and invite reciprocation.

I’ve been in several college rinks and half a dozen professional arenas, but it’s been a few years since I’ve been to a hockey game outside Grand Forks, so maybe I’m not in a position to know — but I still think it’s not sportsmanlike to taunt an opponent. [Grand Forks Herald]

[Randy L. --- East Grand Forks, MN]
I wonder why so many commenters seem to missing the fact that this "topic" is actually 2 separate issues. The first is the vulgarities and message of the crowd chants, and the second is are choices of individuals in settings outside the game (in the concourse, outside the venue, etc.). There is no reason the crowd can't get loud, raucous, and in the face of the opposing team and fans without being physical or vulgar. Do chants, sing songs, show the opposing player in the penalty box with a smart-aleck sign behind him. All of those things can easily be accomplished "cleanly" but still be intimidating. Some of the earlier posters who defend the hockey history and experience are right in the sense of the atmosphere. If you dont' like it rowdy at a Divison 1 college hockey game, don't go. But that same atmosphere doesn't have to be truly offensive. Chant "Shoot the Gophers" - it doesn't have to be F***, does it? It's the same message.

In my opinion Defense Secretary Robert Gates is inept and part of the problem, I don’t know what the heck his problem is maybe he should start listening the generals on the ground and devising a plan that will secure the peace in Afghanistan. If the generals on the ground want more troops then they need more troops. Time to give the general on the ground what they need to be successful.

This week too many US service men have died and I blame this current administration who is incompetent and lacks the ability to come up with a coherent plan to do anything and owns this mess we have now. It’s time to stop blaming Bush and do your job, let’s fight this war to win then get the hell out. It would appear that it’s time for a General David Petraeus surge.

How to proceed in Afghanistan will be among the most difficult and fateful decisions that President Obama ever makes. But he’s the one who has to decide, not his generals. The men with the stars on their shoulders—and I say this with enormous respect for their patriotism and service—need to shut up and salute.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, is entitled to his opinion about the best way forward. But he has no business conducting a public campaign to build support for his preferred option, which is to send tens of thousands more troops into a country once called the “graveyard of empires.”

McChrystal’s view—that a strategy employing fewer resources, in pursuit of more limited goals, would be “short-sighted”—is something the White House needs to hear. He is, after all, the man Obama put in charge in Afghanistan, and it would be absurd not to take his analysis of the situation into account. But McChrystal is out of line in trying to sell his position publicly, as he did last week in a speech in London.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates was right to lay down the law. Gates said Monday that it is “imperative” that military and civilian leaders “provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately.” I believe that’s Pentagon-speak for: “Put a sock in it, Stan.” [Real Clear Politics]

Washington, DC — The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom said today that Cass Sunstein, the Harvard University Law School professor tapped by President-elect Obama to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has a secret aim to push a radical animal-rights agenda in the White House. Sunstein supports outlawing sport hunting, giving animals the legal right to file lawsuits, and using government regulations to phase out meat consumption.
[Consumer Freedom]

Cross posted at [Goon’s ND Red Neck]

"I dialed the hotline number to give a better answer. I said to the audience, they may not have heard me, that I am trying to get an answer," said Congresswoman Lee in one of her cable interviews.

Miller disagreed. "She was getting phone calls and finding out who was in the room, that she needed to say hello to and that's what I believe what was going on right then. After I was done talking, she would say, 'I would like to welcome,'" said Miller.

And that is only one area where their stories differ on what took place at the town hall meeting. Congresswoman Lee says they are now buddies and will hang out together in Washington D.C.

"Now I consider her a friend. I invited her to Washington," said Congresswoman Lee in a cable interview.

That was news to Miller.