FARGO, N.D. — With its ominously titled slideshow, ‘‘Get ready for a big one,’’ the National Weather Service told flood-weary residents in the Fargo area Thursday to prepare for one of the Red River’s five largest crests this spring, an outlook that prompted city and county officials to ask for permanent flood protection.
The latest Weather Service flood outlook for Fargo and neighboring Moorhead, Minn., includes a 50 percent chance that the river would top 38 feet this spring, which would surpass the fifth-highest crest of 37.34 feet in 1969. There’s a 10 percent chance of an all-time record.
‘‘It’s March madness again,’’ said Fargo city administrator Pat Zavoral. He noted that it would be the fourth major flood in five years, including a record crest of 41 feet in 2009.
Chances of a top-five flood increased with near-record cold temperatures that have delayed the snowmelt, which isn’t expected to begin until the first week of April, Weather Service officials said. The chances of major rainfall totals also increase around that time.
Are you tired of the fart-misting lies yet?
‘‘That’s a volatile mix,’’ said Greg Gust, a meteorologist with the agency. He added, ‘‘The bottom line is that we have a way above normal snowpack sitting out there right now.’’
The flood threat comes as Congress is to consider whether to help fund a nearly $2 billion diversion channel around the Fargo-Moorhead area, a project that has come up against roadblocks.
Residents downstream of the river are protesting about a holding area that would flood homes and farmland in times of high water.
See: Sunday Globe Special: Leveeing You All Wet in Missouri
That's the way my Globe leaves me every day.
--more--"
Related: U.S War on Water
Too bad the melt was too late to put out the fire:
All 27 residents displaced as fire claims N.D. town
At least the fields will get irrigated this year:
"N.D. enshrines rights for farmers; Amendment to constitution draws attention" by Blake Nicholson | Associated Press, November 09, 2012
BISMARCK, N.D. — Voters in heavily agriculture-dependent North Dakota became the first to enshrine the right to farm in their state constitution, a move that some say could have far-reaching effects on genetic modification, land use, and the way animals are raised....
Related: California Vote Leaves Bad Taste in My Mouth
Maybe North Dakota will leave a better taste.
Officials in North Dakota said this week that they are not sure what the new right really means, how long it will take to define it, or whether it would survive a court challenge. Another big question is whether other states will follow.
The North Dakota Farm Bureau collected signatures to get the amendment on the ballot after the Humane Society of the United States unsuccessfully pushed a measure two years ago to abolish fenced hunting preserves in North Dakota. Farm groups in other states also had become concerned about the Humane Society and other animal welfare organizations pushing laws to ban small crates for chickens and pregnant pigs, and what they saw as a heavier hand with federal regulation under President Obama.
Farmers pushed back with social media campaigns designed to sway public opinion and promote their own initiatives, such as a law passed earlier this year in Iowa that makes it a crime to lie on a job application to get access to a farm to record video of animal abuse.
Yeah, let's just not talk about the mistreatment and slaughter of the food supply, and the resultant contamination. We got profit$ to make.
North Dakota’s constitutional amendment takes farm protection a step further.
‘‘It’s going to give us a big leg up on special interest groups that come in from outside and want to tell us what to do and what not to do,’’ said Doyle Johannes, president of the state Farm Bureau.
The amendment passed with two-thirds of the vote Tuesday....
Farm groups also saw that proposal as an attack on agriculture because some of the nation’s most important crops, such as corn, are mainly grown with genetically engineered seeds.
Yeah, it's a way for agro-conglomerates to dominate the production of food and cornering the market. Have to buy their seeds. I guess it is better than using their pesticides.
Related: Checking the Supreme Court's DNA
Rather $eedy at the end, isn't it?
Joe Maxwell, a vice president with the Humane Society, said he would not be surprised if North Dakota’s constitutional amendment sparked similar efforts in other states.
One reason the amendment did so well in North Dakota is probably the big role agriculture plays in the state economy. North Dakota leads the nation in the production of eight commodities, from spring wheat to honey and navy beans, and it is among the top five producers of 15 crops.
It has bank power?
But not everyone thinks the amendment is a good idea. The North Dakota Farmers Union, the state’s other main farmer group, opposed it, saying it was too broad and could trump important local and state laws, such as those dealing with zoning and water drainage.
Somehow I didn't think this was a good idea, and the coverage of it by my agenda-pu$her now confirms it.
‘‘It’s probably going to have to be challenged at some point through the court system, and we believe it will be at some point,’’ president Woody Barth said.
Where it will be years before we get a decision.
--more--"
Also see: Massachusetts Finally Has a Good Idea
That's why it went nowhere.
Then it's out of the fields and into the fetus:
N.D. lawmakers define life as starting at conception
"N.D. advances tough abortion bills" by Associated Press | March 16, 2013
Related: California Vote Leaves Bad Taste in My Mouth
Maybe North Dakota will leave a better taste.
Officials in North Dakota said this week that they are not sure what the new right really means, how long it will take to define it, or whether it would survive a court challenge. Another big question is whether other states will follow.
The North Dakota Farm Bureau collected signatures to get the amendment on the ballot after the Humane Society of the United States unsuccessfully pushed a measure two years ago to abolish fenced hunting preserves in North Dakota. Farm groups in other states also had become concerned about the Humane Society and other animal welfare organizations pushing laws to ban small crates for chickens and pregnant pigs, and what they saw as a heavier hand with federal regulation under President Obama.
Farmers pushed back with social media campaigns designed to sway public opinion and promote their own initiatives, such as a law passed earlier this year in Iowa that makes it a crime to lie on a job application to get access to a farm to record video of animal abuse.
Yeah, let's just not talk about the mistreatment and slaughter of the food supply, and the resultant contamination. We got profit$ to make.
North Dakota’s constitutional amendment takes farm protection a step further.
‘‘It’s going to give us a big leg up on special interest groups that come in from outside and want to tell us what to do and what not to do,’’ said Doyle Johannes, president of the state Farm Bureau.
The amendment passed with two-thirds of the vote Tuesday....
Farm groups also saw that proposal as an attack on agriculture because some of the nation’s most important crops, such as corn, are mainly grown with genetically engineered seeds.
Yeah, it's a way for agro-conglomerates to dominate the production of food and cornering the market. Have to buy their seeds. I guess it is better than using their pesticides.
Related: Checking the Supreme Court's DNA
Rather $eedy at the end, isn't it?
Joe Maxwell, a vice president with the Humane Society, said he would not be surprised if North Dakota’s constitutional amendment sparked similar efforts in other states.
One reason the amendment did so well in North Dakota is probably the big role agriculture plays in the state economy. North Dakota leads the nation in the production of eight commodities, from spring wheat to honey and navy beans, and it is among the top five producers of 15 crops.
It has bank power?
But not everyone thinks the amendment is a good idea. The North Dakota Farmers Union, the state’s other main farmer group, opposed it, saying it was too broad and could trump important local and state laws, such as those dealing with zoning and water drainage.
Somehow I didn't think this was a good idea, and the coverage of it by my agenda-pu$her now confirms it.
‘‘It’s probably going to have to be challenged at some point through the court system, and we believe it will be at some point,’’ president Woody Barth said.
Where it will be years before we get a decision.
--more--"
Also see: Massachusetts Finally Has a Good Idea
That's why it went nowhere.
Then it's out of the fields and into the fetus:
N.D. lawmakers define life as starting at conception
"N.D. advances tough abortion bills" by Associated Press | March 16, 2013
BISMARCK, N.D. — North Dakota moved one step closer to adopting what would be the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, with lawmakers sending the Republican governor measures that could set the state up for a costly legal battle over the US Supreme Court decision that legalized the procedure.
North Dakota’s Senate approved two antiabortion bills on Friday, one banning abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy and another prohibiting the procedure because of genetic defects such as Down syndrome. If the governor signs the measures, North Dakota would be the only state with those laws.
Supporters said their goal is to challenge the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion up until a fetus is considered viable, usually at 22 to 24 weeks.
‘‘It’s a good day for babies,’’ said Representative Bette Grande, a Republican from Fargo who introduced both bills. The state’s only abortion clinic is in Fargo, and abortion-rights advocates say the measures are meant to shut it.
Governor Jack Dalrymple has not said anything to indicate he will not approve the measures.
Opponents, who have promised legal challenges to both measures if they become law, urged Dalrymple to veto the bills.
The American Civil Liberties Union called the measures extreme, saying they would make North Dakota “the first state in the nation to ban most abortions.”
“In America, no woman, no matter where she lives, should be denied the ability to make this deeply personal decision,” said ACLU executive director Anthony Romero....
--more--"
"Antiabortion measures in North Dakota spur protests; One bill defines life as beginning at conception" by James MacPherson | Associated Press, March 26, 2013
BISMARCK, N.D. — More than 300 abortion-rights activists carried signs and chanted, ‘‘Veto! Veto! Veto!’’ in a demonstration Monday at the state Capitol protesting a package of measures that would give the state the toughest abortion restrictions in the nation.
Globe managed to find that protest!
The newly formed Stand Up For Women North Dakota also planned rallies in Fargo, Grand Forks and Minot, said Robin Nelson, one of the organizers of the demonstration.
‘‘The intent is to stop the attack on women’s rights in our state,’’ said Nelson, of Fargo.
I want to know why it is that what it means to be a woman is what is your position on abortion.
Who set up that straw man argument?
Russell and Jenn Landphere of Bismarck brought their two infant sons with them to the Capitol.
Does anyone see the irony there?
‘‘The priorities of this state are not in the right place,’’ said Russell Landphere, who took a late lunch from his job as a civil engineer to attend the rally with his family.
‘‘We’re here as a family supporting women’s rights,’’ Jenn Landphere said. ‘‘We feel it’s a woman’s choice or a family’s choice — not the government’s choice.’’
North Dakota lawmakers moved Friday to essentially outlaw abortion in the state by passing a resolution defining life as starting at conception. The North Dakota House approved the bill 57-35 Friday, sending it to voters probably in November 2014. The Senate approved it last month.
Representatives also endorsed two other antiabortion bills Friday....
The Legislature had already passed measures that would ban abortion as early as six weeks, or as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detected, and because of genetic defects such as Down syndrome.
Together, those bills would give North Dakota the strictest abortion laws in the nation. Governor Jack Dalrymple, a Republican, has not indicated whether he supports the measures.
--more--"
"North Dakota OK’s new laws to ban most abortions; Would forbid when heartbeat is detectable" by John Eligon and Erik Eckholm | New York Times, March 27, 2013
FARGO, N.D. — Governor Jack Dalrymple of North Dakota approved the nation’s toughest abortion restrictions on Tuesday, signing into law a measure that would ban nearly all abortions and inviting a legal showdown over just how much states can limit access to the procedure.
Dalrymple, a Republican, signed three bills passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature in Bismarck.
The most far-reaching law forbids abortion once a fetal heartbeat is ‘‘detectable,’’ which can be as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. Fetal heartbeats are detectable at that stage of pregnancy using a transvaginal ultrasound.
Most legal scholars have said the law would violate the Supreme Court’s finding in Roe v. Wade that abortions were permitted until the fetus was viable outside the womb, generally around 24 weeks.
Even some leaders of the antiabortion movement nationally have predicted that laws banning abortion so early in pregnancy are virtually certain to be declared unconstitutional by federal courts....
I'm sick of wasting my time with the Globe's national lead.
Abortion-rights advocates who had gathered here to urge the governor to veto the bills quickly condemned his decision as effectively banning abortion in the state and as an attack on women....
I wonder how many of Obama's Predator drones have performed abortions on Muslims in the world today.
The Center for Reproductive Rights, in New York, immediately condemned the new laws and said it would file a challenge to the fetal heartbeat ban.
The larger, established opponents of abortion including the National Right to Life, Americans United for Life, and the Roman Catholic Church have not supported fetal heartbeat proposals, saying that until the court’s composition changes, they could be counterproductive.
These groups have instead pursued more incremental measures....
‘‘There are two clashing forces in the antiabortion movement now,’’ said Caitlin Borgmann, a law professor and abortion-rights advocate at City University of New York. ‘‘The incrementalists are chipping away at Roe and the others are getting impatient.’’
The egg is splitting?
With passage of heartbeat laws in Arkansas and North Dakota, ‘‘this extreme wing of the movement has definitely gained momentum,’’ Borgmann said. ‘‘But it can only go so far because they can’t win in the courts.’’
Abortion-rights advocates here have felt particularly on the defensive this year because of the sheer number of bills introduced and their sweeping scope....
This is what state legislators are working on as the economy collapses and tax loot is being shoveled out the door?
Some say that North Dakota lawmakers and activists opposed to abortion aggressively pushed their cause this year because they were emboldened by the huge cash reserves from oil revenue that the state can use to fight legal challenges to its laws, and by the successful passage of abortion restrictions elsewhere in the country.
EXCUSE ME?
They are making this political point so they can blow the oil revenue in court?
North Dakota can't find a BETTER USE for that money in the state?
How about CLEANING UP the FLOODS they are NOT SUPPOSED to be having due to the never-ending drought and global warming!
The reason the drought isn't ending is because the irrigation infrastructure has been neglected in favor of wars, Wall Street, Israel, corporate welfare, the funding of lavish political lifestyles, and profits.
--more--"
UPDATE: Abortion bill goes to N.D. governor
Well, you can see what has the concern of the divisive, agenda-pushing newspaper.
I'm not saying this issue isn't important; however, it is only important to certain people and groups, and not all (or most) Americans. The floods and the frankenfood only get a one-day wonder from my agenda-pushing pos. I guess those issues are not as important to women in North Dakota.
FURTHER UPDATE: Judge blocks ‘invalid’ N.D. abortion law
This post is heading south fast:
"Governor signs bill allowing teachers to be armed" by The Associated Press | March 09, 2013
"Governor signs bill allowing teachers to be armed" by The Associated Press | March 09, 2013
PIERRE, S.D. — South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard signed a bill Friday allowing the state’s school districts to arm teachers and other personnel with guns.
Supporters say the armed workers could help prevent tragedies such as December’s shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in which 20 students and six teachers died.
Sorry, I keep getting stuck in Pittsfield on that one. The more the agenda-pushing psy-op that is the newspaper cites it, the more suspicious it becomes.
Several representatives of school boards, school administrators, and teachers opposed the bill during committee testimony last month. They said the measure could make schools more dangerous, lead to accidental shootings, and put guns in the hands of people who are not adequately trained to shoot in emergency situations.
I would assume they would need to take a class or something. In any event, one gets tired of outrageous, sky-is-falling hyperbole or lies.
The bill’s main sponsor, Representative Scott Craig, Republican of Rapid City, said this week that he has received messages from a growing number of school board members and administrators who back it. Craig said rural districts do not have the money to hire full-time law officers.
Remember when the NRA was laughed at for suggesting such a thing?
--more--"
Also see:
"A South Dakota inmate has been put to death for killing a prison guard by beating him with a pipe and covering his head in plastic wrap during a failed escape attempt."
I hope I won you over with this post.
