Book Review: Get It On

I've read over twenty books since my last book review on here.  I'm extremely selective with what I read, so I'm always fairly certain I will at least like a book before I begin.  As a result, none of those twenty have been bad (in my opinion) and some were even very good.  However, none of them were excellent--especially compared to the last book I finished.

"Get It On: What It Means to Lead the Way" by Keni Thomas is one of the best books I've ever read.  Considering that between school and pleasure reading, I've read probably close to 1000 books so far in my life, and even out of the best ones there are very few I'd recommend to anyone and even fewer I'd recommend to everyone.  This is one book I'd recommend to everyone.

It's not just about Keni's experience in the Battle of Mogadishu, and even though many of the lessons are based in Christian faith it's not preachy or inapplicable to non-Christians.  It is a book that has something for everyone, I feel, no matter your interests or ideology.  I've read several books with the same basic message, but none conveys the story so accessibly and in such a concise and to the point manner.  None take a grave situation that was anything but funny, and manage to tell it with appropriately placed humor and levity.

At Belmont, students are required to attend a certain number of "Convo events" in order to graduate.  These are typically an hour long, and most of them involved sitting and listening to a speaker of little importance discuss any multitude of topics with widely varying quality.  It was required, and I can't say that most students enjoyed the majority of the Convo events they attended, so we all just showed up and feigned interest for the hour to get the credit.  Once in a while an event would pop up on the calendar that might seem interesting, so you'd try really hard to make that event but more often than not that turned out to be disappointing regardless.

One day I saw that a pilot from the "Black Hawk Down" incident would be speaking in the library, and I thought that might be kinda cool.  I knew of the incident, but had not seen the movie or know much about it beyond the basics.  To my surprise, I sat enthralled the entire hour, totally in awe of the story that guy told.  Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of the man that spoke that day.  But I left campus and drove immediately to Blockbuster, where I rented the movie.  I went back to my apartment, popped in the DVD, and sat on my couch and cried like a baby through almost the entire movie.  It was such a devastating, but moving, story.  I was even more in awe of the man I'd just seen speak, but I could never bring myself to watch the movie again.  It was just too hard to watch.

Then I met Keni.  He had been referred to us by our previous landlord when he needed the engine swapped in his 1971 Dodge Charger.  We were told Keni was a country singer, but I'd never heard of him before, and I'll admit at first I didn't like him too much.  It wasn't that he did anything wrong--in fact, he was a super-chipper, upbeat dude--but people like that always make me a bit suspicious.  I'm too cynical to believe that people can just be happy-go-lucky all the time without being fake or trying to hide something.  Usually, in my experience, the people that seem so nice upfront turn out to be major assholes later down the line. 

The more Keni came around the more I started to like him.  He did seem, after getting to know him better, to be a genuinely nice guy and he was funny.  His engine swap turned out to be rife with problems, but he never got pissed or stressed about it, which is the best kind of customer to have.  I learned that he did USO Tours and motivational speaking, but I didn't know why.  I actually thought that was a bit silly that anyone would pay for a non-mainstream artist to come speak to their group about anything.

Then a friend of a friend told us his story...Keni had been an Army Ranger and fought in the Battle of Mogadishu.  Keni, the super-friendly musician with long hair that kinda dressed like Keith Urban was a decorated combat veteran from one of the most horrific and historic battles of all time--and certainly of my lifetime.  I immediately thought back to the guy that spoke at Belmont, and how challenging just watching the movie had been.  I didn't believe that Keni...our Keni...could have been though that.  One minute with Google proved otherwise.

When we asked him about it the next time we saw him he wasn't afraid to talk about it, but he was so humble about the experience, it was shocking.  But that was the basis for his motivational speaking, and that was the driving force behind his music and all of his work with charities. 

I told him about the speaker I saw at Belmont, but I never pressed him to share his story.  I figured if he wanted to share he would.  We talked more about this group or that group that he'd worked with recently, or his experiences on his last USO tour, or singing the national anthem at Yankee Stadium for the World Series.  So when he told us he was writing a book I was very excited, and ordered it as soon as it became available.  At that point it was just simple curiosity.  I wanted to know what Keni had to say about it.

Coincidentally, after learning his "true identity" HBO ran the movie "Black Hawk Down" for several weeks, and I watched it multiple times in whole or in part.  It was still just as difficult as the first time, but I wanted to better understand the event without pestering Keni about it.  Now I'd get the chance to "hear it from Keni" without imposing on him.

I got so much more than I was looking for with this book.  Even though I personally know him, which meant that I could "hear" his "voice" in so much of the story, the fact that I know him didn't factor much into the impression the book left on me.  His story, and the story of all the men involved in that battle, is inspirational in itself.  Keni's unique take on it, and how it all applies to anyone is very human and relatable.  the added punch comes from the fact that you know it got someone through what is truly the worst of times so it must apply to the small, insignificant battles we all face every day.  Because he shows you that no battle is small or insignificant.  Everything and everyone in life has a purpose, but if you are ready to "fight" you will never lose, even when you don't win.

The most important line, to me personally, was: good is not good enough when better is expected.

That's exactly what the book delivered.

Slow Down: Wyoming Ahead

Life has been overly hectic the last few months, and other than a quick political theory post I slammed out for Bree, I haven't blogged since hockey season.  I was even pretty remiss in my hockey blogging, giving up somewhere during the playoffs as show season overlapped Nashville's deep(er) run.  Yet, even with all the goings-on nothing felt quite blog-worthy...not worthy enough to forgo what little sleep I have been getting to put finger to keyboard, anyway.


Until now.  After a very long, hot show season this summer we finally got to the hottest days of August and our long-awaited vacation.  After driving over 1300 miles to Rapid City where we deposited truck and trailer in advance of the Kool Deadwood Nites show, we hopped in a rental car and took off for 500 more miles, across Wyoming.  Our final destination was Grand Teton National Park. 


The drive across the entire state of Wyoming felt never ending and we were questioning our common sense (and other faculties) for choosing to sandwich this short two-day vacation in between so much other driving and work.  We arrived at our cabin in the middle of the night on Monday, and in the darkness we couldn't see anything at all beyond our headlights. 

Our cabin was "rustic," meaning that it had no TV or other amenities.  It had electricity and heat, but no air conditioning.  It had a bathroom with shower, but no tub.  Everything was very basic and plain but we were so tired it didn't really matter.  The dogs didn't settle in that first night, and their intermittent barking combined with the not-quite-full-size bed meant I didn't sleep very well and after waking up at 6:00am on Tuesday I decided to go ahead and get up for the morning and drive down to the little convenience store for milk to make coffee.

As soon as I turned off the cabin road onto the main road leading to the store I was met with the most amazing view...a snow-capped mountain peeking up above the trees.  It was a chilly 37 degrees and my fingers were frosty but I pulled off to the side of the parking lot just to get a better look.  At that point I was so energized it felt as if I had slept soundly all night.  I rushed back to the cabin and waited for Kirby to wake up, around 8:00.  I couldn't wait for him to see what I had seen.


We had some coffee in the room, and headed to the restaurant for breakfast around 10:00.  He wasn't as excited about the mountain view as I had been, since he lived in Colorado for a few years and had seen actual mountains before.  After breakfast we took a short walk down to the marina and once he laid eyes on the crystal clear lake he was finally feeling some of the same excitement as I was.

Even though we only spent two short days at Colter Bay it felt like much longer.  With nothing to do but enjoy nature and the breathtaking surroundings we were able to slow down to a relaxing pace we haven't experienced in quite some time.  Maybe ever, actually.  The second day we took a lake cruise and a horseback ride, and that night we drove up through the southern part of Yellowstone to Old Faithful and back south.  Around every bend in the road was another unbelievable view.


I can't believe it's taken me this long to venture out to this part of the country, but I hope that it won't be long before I return.  As much as I've always been a beach lover, I was shocked to find I might be more of a mountain person.  Despite being late in the season, the parks were still fairly busy and crowded, but they are also so huge that it's very easy to still feel alone.   What I used to love about the beach as a kid no longer works for me as an adult, and the bottom line on my vacations now is quiet, alone time.  Until I can afford to vacation on a beach that will give me quiet, alone time I think I'm going to stick with the rugged mountain wilderness.

I also can't imagine how the early explorers felt when they first laid eyes on this place, but I have an idea.  No pictures can do it justice, so I was not in the least bit prepared for the stunningly beautiful landscape God placed in this strange corner of the world.  We were not gone five minutes and I already pined to return.  Hell, we hadn't even left at all and I was already despondent that I even had to leave.  It makes perfect sense why Jackson Hole is a favorite vacation spot of celebrities and the rich and famous. It is the only place I've ever been where time seems to come to a complete stop, there is no hustle and bustle--only silence and beauty.  I've never been to Hollywood, but I bet that's a far cry from what you get there.  Probably the farthest from that scene that you can get on this planet.

I highly recommend EVERYONE go there, at least once.  It was beyond worth the additional 1200 miles we racked up on the trip.  I'm plotting my return and planning for a way to buy a cabin there and just run away...

For Bree: Part Three

Now for our final installment...

The Tenth Amendment seems pretty clear, on it's face:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

But then there's this tricky little part...back in the beginning, Article I, Section VII:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

It makes sense that the federal government would be in charge of regulating commerce between the states, since giving that authority to the states themselves would be a never ending source of conflict and empowering certain states to regulate interstate commerce would necessarily give them an unfair advantage.  So, the "Commerce Clause" makes perfect, rational sense.

In 1787, what constituted commerce was pretty clear.  There also wasn't a large volume of commerce to regulate, and even when there were some goods manufactured exclusively in one state or several that were not manufactured in others, transportation was not that great, so it was fairly easy to get a handle on interstate commerce.

Enter progress...westward expansion, railroads, then cars and trucks, then airplanes...electricity, telegraph, telephones, Internet...holy crap!  What is commerce now, and how do we regulate it when we can't even define it?  Or track all of it? 

The Supreme Court jumped into the fray early on, in 1942, in Wickard v. Filburn, declaring that Congress did have the power to regulate commerce transacted wholly intrastate, or specifically in this case activity that did not even amount to commerce at all, if it had an effect on interstate commerce.  See, the federal government imposed limits on the amount of wheat any one farm could grow based on acreage in an attempt to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression (and presumably help wheat farmers?).  Mr. Filburn was growing more than his allotted amount, but was NOT selling it.  He was just using it on his own farm, and for his own personal consumption.  But the fact that he was not buying the extra wheat he needed in the marketplace had an effect on that marketplace, and the wheat market was legally regulated by the federal government.

This one case forever changed the scope of federal power, because it allowed the government to regulate all sorts of activity that it could not before, so long as they could prove a link to interstate commerce.  It was sixty years until the Supreme Court backed off this interpretation and began re limits on what exactly can be called a link to interstate commerce, but the damage has already been done.

We see this debate vividly today, with regards to the health care legislation popularly called "Obamacare."  The Administration claims Congress has the authority to mandate individuals purchase health insurance under the Commerce Clause, because failure to do so affects interstate commerce since uninsured individuals still utilize health care services and often do not pay.  Opponents argue, however, that this is beyond the purview of the Commerce Clause, because the failure to purchase health insurance is decidedly non-economic in nature, even if it has effects on commerce as a whole.  Although Congress has been granted power to regulate non-economic activity that affects interstate commerce this presents a new and novel question (and one the Supreme Court is likely to take up) since the law essentially forces everyone to engage in commerce, rather than simply regulating a non-economic activity.  They posit, and rightly in my opinion, that it would be no different than Congress requiring everyone to purchase one carton of Florida Orange Juice per week, since the failure to buy Florida OJ negatively affects the economy of Florida and interstate commerce.  This is not the only constitutionally questionable provision of the law, but it is the strongest and most unique constitutional question that must be answered.

So...after basically composing a novel, I hope I explained the basis of Federalism, the foundation of my opinions about Federalism, and why I prefer more states' rights to more federal power.  You don't have to agree with me, and I strongly urge you to research the topic more on your own.  My only goal was to help you navigate out of the weeds of the issue a bit, because I know how I felt when I first encountered the subject in college.  I thought I'd never be able to understand it completely, then it turned out to be my favorite constitutional law subject.  Everyone's attracted at first to the sexy amendments...First, Second, Fourth...but over time the Tenth really grew on me, even though it's had a long and complicated case history.  It really is the most heavily disputed and most controversial of all the amendments.  I never expected to get so caught up in it, but then I ended up writing both of my theses on some variation of it.  It is critically important to the functioning of our government, and the security of our union, and I wish more people understood it and all its implications.

For Bree: Part Two

Now, let's get down to business...Madison also said:

"Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations; but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes."

"Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. "

At the time the Constitution was written we had already tried out a very Anti-Federalist government with the Articles of Confederation, and it was a massive failure.  Everyone agreed that we needed more centralized power in the federal government, but the states were not eager to give up power, either.  The challenge was finding a good balance between the two, and to create a document that could be ratified.  It was from these debates The Federalist Papers were born.

We all know how the story ends, so I'll skip ahead a bit.  The major reason that some things were Federalized and others not in 1787 is entirely practical.  It all boiled down to ratification.  We'd fought a hard war and won, and already tried a lax form of government.  The Founders spent a hot summer in a closed up room in their wool suits, pantyhose and wigs, and frankly didn't want to do it again.  They also didn't want the nation to crumble in infancy, so they had to come up with something everyone would agree on.  Other than the military, there is really no good reason why some powers were granted to the federal government and some to the states.  Some things make more sense under the control of the federal government, but in the end there was no "right" or "wrong" answer there, and they didn't have some magic formula for what would work in the long-term, they just knew what would or would not be ratified by the states.

Regardless of why it shook down the way it did, it is what we are left with.  And, ultimately, you wanted to know why having it set up this way is better than a stronger federal government.  Now that I've said all that I've said, I'll try and answer that question.

1. As previously mentioned, our government was designed to move slowly and deliberately.  Part of that plan was dividing the federal government into the three, co-equal branches that have completely separate powers, but which rely on one another to get things done.  That also prevents a concentration of power in one branch, which is supposed to ensure freedom.  Madison also famously said, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."  Ta da!  There you have checks and balances! 

But dividing power between the three branches of government wasn't seen as a strong enough check on government power.  That's why they gave certain areas specifically to the states.  If we further divide power between the federal, state and local governments you have just that many more checks and balances in the system.  Each level of government will guard their areas of power with a vengeance.  The dilution of government power is the best, and only surefire, way to limit tyranny.  It's kind of like the difference between peeing in the bathtub and peeing in the ocean.  Yeah, you are the only one peeing in the tub, but there's much less water so in the end you are basically sitting in your own pee.  Lots of things pee in the ocean, but there's so much more water, plus it's moving, that it's not really a big deal...even if everyone on the beach that day pees in the ocean, too.

2.  Some things are just better handled at the local level, because (like in the milk and cookies example) no one knows what they need most than the individual.  Sure, the federal government is capable of filling potholes but isn't that much easier to address at the city level?  Just like you'd prefer to shop at a locally-owned mom and pop store over WalMart, you prefer some services to be performed at the local level.  What does Mr. Joe Road Department Bureaucrat in DC care about the street in front of your house?  He never has to see it, or drive on it.  But Ms. Jane City Government does have to look at it and drive on it, and even if she doesn't she has to live on your town and wants it to be nice and livable.  She doesn't want people to move away because the roads are shitty, or not move their business's new headquarters there because of road conditions.  Local people have a stake in local issues and problems, and so they are better equipped knowledge-wise, and are invested on a personal level in solving them.

Further, not every city is the same and not every state is the same.  We worry about flooding, but that's not a major concern in Phoenix, AZ.  A one-size-fits-all policy just won't work on so many issues, and since everything is the government's business nowadays, the best solution is going to come from the people who live there among the problem and will have to live with the results.  Trying to centralize all of these decisions in the federal government will only work to limit choices (back to the milk and cookies example), and ultimately limit freedom.  And as Madison warned, it is not the violent revolution we must fear...it is the gradual encroachment on our liberties we must always be on the lookout for.  And just like with eating milk and cookies, one bite here and one sip there and suddenly you are all out of milk and cookies.  How did that happen?  I just had a whole box of Oreos and a gallon of milk a few seconds ago!?!

3.  Because states are smaller, and generally more homogeneous in population than the nation as a whole, they can serve as important testing grounds for other states or for potential federal policy.  Justice Brandeis called states "the laboratories of democracy" meaning that states should be free to try new and innovative policies and see if they work.  If they do work, then great, we've learned something that can be applied elsewhere to everyone's benefit.  Yet, if they fail, we've still learned something but without the risk of damaging too many lives, or the economy as a whole, or the nation as a whole.

If we limit states' ability to try things out we deprive ourselves of a valuable resource that is impossible to replicate in any other way.  Not only that, but we deprive ourselves of an important tool for keeping the union harmoniously intact.  The fact that states are generally homogeneous (demographically, economically, ideologically) allows each state to create the environment and society that its residents prefer and people are free to move between the states as they choose to find the locations that best fit their needs and beliefs.  Just as people in the "Bible Belt" prefer a more traditional, conservative, faith-based community that would anger most residents of California, people in the auto manufacturing centers like Detroit don't take kindly to California's strict environmental regulations. 

As Madison stated, and to which I agreed, factions are natural and not preventable.  Forcing everyone to live by the same standards and morals will only produce discontent.  This was the case with the Civil War and slavery, and again with Jim Crow laws and the Civil Rights Movement which we all agree now were the "right" or "correct" or "just" things to do, but the case isn't usually so black and white, cut and dry as with those examples.  People in the Bible Belt like Sunday Blue Laws and having the liquor stores closed on Sunday.  Is that wrong or right, or simply a matter of preference that doesn't really affect much?  And don't I have the freedom to try and change those laws, or to move somewhere else that doesn't have them if they are a major source of unhappiness to me?  As long as it's constitutional and doesn't infringe on anyone else's constitutional rights then it should be allowed.

For a long time this division of power worked well, and not much was disputed in terms of what was federal and what was state but times change, things change and the world became much different than it was in 1787.  The remarkable thing about our Constitution is that it has held up to the test of time despite all of the changes in society.  It has been amended and interpreted to accommodate changes the Founders couldn't have anticipated in their wildest dreams, but what we must always be careful of is changing the interpretation of the document so much that the original spirit and intent is no longer present within our application of it.

That is the issue we face today, and it's alot trickier than people want to admit.  Obviously, the areas of federal power were clearly enumerated in the Constitution but some of the vagueness in the Bill of Rights has come back to bite it in the ass.  

For Bree: Part One

It's been exactly two months since I posted anything here, but it's not for a lack of wanting to.  Things have been busy and hectic, and I have a backlog of things to discuss.  What brings me back here tonight, however, was an inquiry by an old, dear friend regarding Federalism.  Since Federalism is one of my favorite subjects and I'm completely overeducated in the area of political theory, I like to make use of my secret talents whenever they are required.  Particularly if someone is looking to increase their knowledge base and taking an interest in politics.


So, for you Bree...an introductory case for Anti-Federalism...never mind that you could read The Federalist Papers and get a more succinct debate than I'm likely to engage in...


Before discussing any political issue, it is absolutely essential to determine what your core values are.  I call these your "foundational beliefs."  It is a common joke about philosophy that you can argue the nature of anything, for how do you know that your "truth" is my "truth," or the "absolute truth" and that is true to a degree.  Without getting so far into the minutiae of debate as to question "how do you know that the color white is white?" you still have to determine what YOU believe to be true because those opinions will color your interpretation of everything else.  A difference in foundational beliefs is what will cause two reasonable people to look at the same thing (or body of evidence) and declare that it is two separate and different things entirely.  Example: one person looks at the health care legislation and calls it an unconstitutional, socialist attempt by the government to ration care and limit freedom by controlling access to health care.  Another person looks at it as a perfectly constitutional exercise of government power, that benefits the masses and makes everyone better off.  Why?  Their foundational beliefs about the proper role of government and the nature of mankind are like colored glasses through which they view all of the information.  If you always believe that more government is bad, then any policy that creates more government is going to be bad.


That said, my foundational beliefs are as follows:

• More government always equals less freedom.  If freedom is my ability to make choices for myself, then where a law makes that choice for me (or limits the choices I can make) I have less freedom.
• People are inherently good in that most people don't want to harm others if there is a way to accomplish the same ends without doing so.
• However, if people cannot accomplish their desired ends without harming people, they will typically choose to harm others because they are driven by their instinct for self-preservation and self-interest.
• Not all instances where people pursue self-interest are "bad."  In fact, the pursuit of self-interest is what leads to a vibrant economy in that people will benefiting others while benefiting themselves (that is basically the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith).  Example: I have cookies, but no milk.  You have milk, but no cookies.  So, I trade some cookies for some of your milk, then we both have cookies and milk and are both better off.
• People will naturally form (what Madison called) factions.  I do not believe there to be any device of mankind that can prevent this.  We will always think of "us" and "them" even when we do not mean it in a negative way.  This is my family, that is yours.  I live over here, you live over there.  Of course, factions can develop negative connotations and outputs (see Hitler, al Qaeda), but they are not necessarily "bad" at face value.

So, you are left looking for situations where you can get what you want, with the least possible harm to others, and with the maximum gain to yourself--if others also gain, then great.  I'm best able to make those decisions when all options are open to me.  Using the milk and cookies example again, let's say that you value your milk at one cup of milk to one cookie because you really don't like milk that much and you have lots of it.  you'd rather have more cookies and less milk.  But I really like cookies, and don't have that many, so I'd prefer to give you one cookie for two cups of milk.  Either we'll work it out and both end up with some division of milk and cookies that's satisfactory to both of us, or we'll both go away with what we started with and be dissatisfied.  We can then seek out others who are willing to value our items like we do, and complete a trade.


Now let's say that there is an overabundance of milk and a shortage of cookies, and it's getting difficult for anyone to trade milk and cookies because the people with milk are still not willing to give up too much milk in exchange for a few cookies, because maybe holding out will help them get a better deal later.  Or maybe someone will show up with cake, and you'd be just as willing to trade milk for cake as for cookies.  Now the government is upset because no one is trading milk and cookies, so they aren't getting their tax revenue off the milk and cookie trade.  The set the prices for milk and cookies, and declare that one cookie equals three cups of milk.  Before they did that, though, I came to the conclusion that I was just going to need more cookies in order to get the amount of milk I wanted, so I got to baking more cookies.  And the cake people figured out there was a hole in the marketplace and started baking cake and trading for milk.


I'm super excited because my cookies will now get me three cups of milk, and if the milk people don't like that, then tough.  I have lots of cookies, and I can get three cups of milk for each one.  Milk producers realize there's more to be had making cookies, in comparison to their milk, so they get out of the milk business altogether and start making cookies.  Now all of a sudden there's not enough milk, and way too many cookies and cakes.  The milk people are mad since they can't control the price of their milk and the cookie people are making a killing, even turning around and reselling excess milk for cake since they can buy it so "cheap" and there's a shortage on.


Rather than letting the owners of the goods determine how much they want/need of something and trading accordingly, the whole system has been thrown off balance because people not involved with the trades set the values and moved on.  Now, instead of repealing the cookie-milk price they try and regulate the price of cake to milk trades, and make it illegal for cookie bakers to trade in milk after they've purchased it, and it goes on and on and on...whereas, you and I probably would have settled on one cookie for a cup and a half of milk, since that's a happy medium that we both could have lived with, and would have been better off than had we not traded at all.


Kind of a stupid example, but hopefully it illustrates how making a law on something doesn't necessarily solve the problem and in every instance it will create a cascade of unintended consequences that need to be addressed, until you have a ridiculous amount of rules that completely limit an individual's ability to make the choices that will best benefit them, in that situation, at that moment in time.  No two people know what they need better than those two people, right then.

Now you are probably wondering why in my imaginary scenario, after the milk and cookie market collapsed under government regulation they didn't just deregulate the market and let us figure it out on our own again?  The answer to that is found in more modern political theory, although the Founders touched on it some.  It simply hadn't been fleshed out as a theory until after the industrial revolution, and it boils down to economics, as well.

You see, when we passed a law regulating the sale of milk and cookies we had to have a way to enforce that or the law was pointless.  Therefore, we created an agency to monitor the market and to dole out punishment when people violated the law.  A separate constituency was created that has a stake in the milk and cookie market even though they aren't directly involved in the manufacture or sale of the goods.  Those people don't want to lose their power, or their jobs more importantly, so they will protect their interests even when it's not in the best interests of the general public.  We were already collecting taxes on the initial sale of milk and cookies, but now we have these people to pay, and now we need more revenue.  They increase the fines associated with violating the law, which will increase the appeals and so forth.  Now you need more people to process all of that.  Suddenly the group of people dependent on regulating milk and cookies has grown.  You need special task forces to operate undercover stings, and that requires more money.  I know...let's make people register as licensed milk and cookie sellers and charge a fee for that!  Plus, that protects the consumer because they know they will be getting REAL milk and cookies, and not some contaminated crap from China!  Who's going to process the licenses?  More people, of course!  Now the little guy who was just producing a few gallons of milk a month can't afford to sell milk anymore so he goes out of business.  Only the big corporate milk producers are left, and they try to use their size to influence future policy and get some good breaks on the rules.  A whole other industry pops up with people who help defend (lawyers), or consult (accountants, etc...) people in the industry and help them navigate the increasingly complex rules and regulations.

It's hard to fault them, really.  It would be the same as any regular person walking into their boss's office and saying, "You know what?  I think the company would be better off without me, so why don't you go ahead and fire me?  My job isn't even all that important, so I'd just eliminate the position altogether.  In fact, go ahead and cut my whole department."  No one is going to do that.  The difference between government and a private business, however, is that a private business's growth is limited by the amount of money that can bring in from selling their goods and services.  The government just increases taxes, fees, penalties, etc... to keep funding their ever-growing enterprises. 

The Founders did understand that once government does something--be it passing a law, creating an agency, whatever--that it is highly unlikely that it will ever be repealed or cut.  That is always harder to do than to create it.  This is one of the main reasons they created our system to be cumbersome and slow.  Our Congress was not set up to act quickly because it was felt that no law is better than a bad law, and if it takes multiple steps and lots of time to pass a law, it will be better considered and more likely to have the proper support.

I also started this discussion by using an economic example, and that was intentional.  We declared our independence from Britain for lots of reasons, but primarily for economic ones.  It is also one of the foundational beliefs of our Founding Fathers that economic liberty is central to all others.  Without the ability to own property, and to create goods from raw materials and sell them, keeping the profits to care for ourselves and continue to make goods (or provide services) is the essential nature of liberty.  That which a man creates from his own labor and property is his.  I'm sure that you understand from your interest in Robin Hood, that "confiscating" the fruits of one's labors and/or property is a critical tool of tyrants and oppressive governments.  For most political philosophers who believe in democracy, liberty, etc...the number one function of government is to protect private property rights.  There is no other suitable body for doing so.

Madison said:

 "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

Hockey Thoughts: Caps Postmortem

Another year, another colossal failure by the Caps.  I didn't even get around to making my 2nd Round picks before one series was over...and the rest are nearing completion.  After such a tough and drawn-out 1st Round I'm blown away at how quickly the 2nd Round is closing out.

I didn't try this time, but somehow I became emotionally divested from the Capitals and Lightning series.  When the Caps dropped the first two on home ice I sort of knew what was coming.  I didn't even consider a comeback.  I just pondered my feelings for the Caps and considered calling it quits.  I'm not a fair weather fan by any means, but I didn't start out a Caps fan.  I didn't become a Caps fan until I had moved back to Nashville.  I was an Ovechkin fan, and that eventually translated into supporting the entire team and not just one player. 

But it turned from a healthy relationship into an abusive one.  How many times can you expect someone to come crawling back after you've beaten all of the hope out of them.  Taken their dreams and stomped on them.  The difference between the Caps and the Preds is that I don't expect the Preds to win.  The Caps are supposed to be my ace in the hole once the Preds' season comes to an end.  Yet, they've never held up their end of the bargain.

Then this morning I came across Ted Leonsis' blog post about the series.  He's a businessman first and foremost, and what he did was excellent business.  He was honest about their failure, didn't attempt to sugarcoat it, accepted blame, and apologized.  I went from not caring at all to being very moved in an instant.  It made me remember that Ted isn't going to give up.  He wants a Cup more than anyone, probably even more than Sasha.  I remembered how awesome it is to watch games on TV that are in the Verizon Center.  The rowdy, all-red scene is familiar to people now but it still feels foreign to me every time I see it.  That's not the Verizon Center I remember...not even close.  He's come so far with this team, and I know he won't stop short of the finish line.  So, as long as Ted hangs in there, I'll hang in there.  I just wish they wouldn't keep us all hanging for so long!

Hockey Thoughts: What it Feels Like to Win

I guess it's about time for me to address what happened on Sunday.  I was drunk Sunday night, hungover on Monday, and simply spent Tuesday and Wednesday.  So, I'll do something "productive" in the thirty minutes I'm required to wait after getting my allergy shots!  If I wait too much longer, the second round will have already started. 

I still haven't wrapped my brain around it, and I'm not sure I'm ready to say much at all.  I'm not ready to make my predictions for the second round, particularly since I've been trying to give my brain a hockey vacation for the last few days to recharge emotionally from the Preds' win.  I'll try to work on picks later tonight or tomorrow.  With that said... 


I'll admit that toward the end of Friday's game I was not feeling positive.  With about five minutes remaining I was utterly depressed.  Then the unthinkable happened.  We tied the game with 35 seconds remaining by pulling our goalie.  Then we won in OT.  Going into Sunday's game I wasn't nervous.  I had a feeling.  Charles called it.  And all was well. 


It was exciting and emotional.  I cried for the last three minutes of the game, after holding back tears for the whole second half.  With the exception of Sully's goal, I did a good job of maintaining composure--aided by shovelling popcorn into my face.  We yelled, partied, celebrated, etc...

It was unbelievably relieving and exciting at the same time.  I felt like I was floating for days, even with a brutal hangover and running on too little sleep.  It kinda felt like we'd won IT.  Not the Stanley Cup...I'm sure the excitement at that point is off the charts...but just that we'd won IT.  You know, IT.  Whatever IT is.  The last battle, the final match.  My brain wasn't ready to abandon the happiness and joy it felt from winning to think about what happened next.  that we'd actually have to play another team, and one (out of any of the potential options at the time) that was vastly better than either us or the Ducks.  It was too amazing to look ahead.  Why spoil it with depressing thoughts of actually having to play another round...when we WON IT!


I'm not sure it's really sunk in.  Until late Tuesday night we didn't even know who we were going to play.  Once I found out, I refused to overthink it.  I had deep-down wanted Detroit.  I had mentally prepared for Detroit.  Vancouver, well, that's a whole other animal.  Then they sprung it on us late yesterday afternoon that the first game would be tonight.  I'm simply not mentally or physically ready.  I haven't run down the possibilities in my mind and I'm exhausted.  The only thing I'm grateful for right now is the start time that's an hour earlier than usual, so I have some hope of getting a little rest tonight.  I'd like to believe that I'll either be so excited or so upset that I won't be able to sleep much.  I think that I'll be so drained that all I'll want to do is sleep.

One thing about making it to the second round is that immediately after the euphoria wears off, it's exponentially more stressful than the first round.  Even though I had a good feeling about the Preds this time around, and picked them to win (in 6, no less), I still wouldn't have been surprised had they lost.  Processing those emotions is familiar.  I have plenty of practice.  By now, I'd have started to feel better. 

I'm used to not really caring at this point.  Frankly, I'm not sure I have enough hockey-energy in reserve to make it through even a short round two, let alone a protracted battle to 6 or 7.  Hopefully, once the puck drops tonight I'll feel differently and find renewed energy I didn't know I had.  And hopefully the Preds do, too.  Even more hopefully, the Canucks will be out of steam after their hard-fought battle with Chicago.  But why think about that now?  I'll go crazy if I do!  I'll think about it tomorrow...because tomorrow is another day!

Hockey Thoughts: Playoff Picks, Part 1

I know everyone is just dying for my Round 1 Playoff picks, so here we go...

#4 Ducks vs. #5 Preds
Yeah, yeah it's out of order but I'm going with my team first!  This is the highest seed the Preds have ever been blessed with, and everyone keeps saying this could be our year to make it to the second round.  My head tells me otherwise, but my heart and gut are telling me it's go time!  On the one hand, we've owned the Ducks this season.  On the other hand, we are notorious for first round flops.  On the other, other hand the Ducks' staring goalie, for all intents and purposes is Dan "It's all in my Head" Ellis.  The Preds haven't been scoring much this season, but when they do, it's a group effort.  The Ducks have one solid scoring line.  However, they don't need much more when the Rocket Trophy winner is on their team...plus my favorite sleazy-moustache sportin' player Teemu Selanne.  Used to be Johan Franzen I feared when it came to one-man Preds killing ability (to get the puck in the net) but the past two years, it's been Selanne.  I expect the Preds to put up a fight, and I expect the Ducks to fight back even harder.  But if we can control Perry and Selanne, I think we have this one.

Verdict: Preds in 6

#1 Capitals vs. #8 Rangers
This series scares me.  The Rangers had the Caps' number all season long, but most of the times they played were during the Caps' dark days of rebuilding.  The Caps need this.  The Caps want this.  I expect this to be gritty and dirty.  I don't have much faith in the Caps' goaltending.  But I do have faith that my boys can finally bring it home.  The Caps aren't known for wrapping it up early, though.  I fully expect this to go the full seven games. 

Verdict: Caps in 7

#1 Canucks vs. #8 Blackhawks
I've said more than once that if one team had a chance of unseating Vancouver it would be Chicago.  I also didn't expect Chicago to squeak in by the seat of their pants.  In the end, Chicago is not the same team they were last year, and Vancouver is hungry.  Deflate Towes and you deflate the entire team.  Despite all the injuries, Vancouver is a scoring powerhouse that isn't lacking on defense either. 

Verdict: Canucks in 6

#2 Sharks vs. #7 Kings
They split the season series 3-3, with two of San Jose's losses coming in the shootout.  What appears at first blush to be a difficult one to call seems pretty clear to me.  The Kings just don't have it.  I don't see much different in them this post-season over last post-season when everyone had them pegged to go deep.  Except they are missing their leading scorer and haven't had time to adapt.  San Jose becomes a different team in the Playoffs, and although I don't think they'll go all the way this year (again), I do think they will plow through the Kings with relative ease. 

Verdict: Sharks in 6

#3 Wings vs. #6 Coyotes
Yeah, the Coyotes gave the Wings a run for their money last year, but I don't think this Phoenix team has as much heart.  The Wings have a little weakness in net, but they are a Playoff Machine.  Expect the Wings to want some revenge over last year's near embarrassment.  Once the Wings turn it on, it's over.

Verdict: Wings in 5

#2 Flyers vs. #7 Sabres
Everyone thought the Flyers were the team to beat, but they lost quite a bit of steam as the season came to a close.  I'm not sure they can get it back, especially facing a team as hot and desperate as Buffalo.  This one will be a battle of wills between the goaltenders, but I think Philly is going to pull out the mother of all disappointments, even though they will take it to the wire as usual. 

Verdict: Sabres in 7

#3 Bruins vs. #6 Canadiens
Due to the history of this regular season series between these two it has the potential to be the hottest match-up overall.  I just have a feeling that it will not meet those expectations and will fizzle out after the first game.  Boston is likely to underestimate Montreal after the total beat-down they put on them in the last game of the season series.  Montreal has a major chip on their shoulder, and has lots to prove.  The Caps greatly underestimated them last season at their peril.  Price and Thomas will be the stars of the series, but without team support Thomas will, unfortunately, lose this battle.  Price seems to do best when unsupported by his teammates.  The longer the series drags on the more it favors the Habs.

Verdict: Habs in 7

#4 Penguins vs. #5 Lightning
Unfortunately, this one isn't hard to decide.  The Lightning just don't have what it takes.  They looked good early on, but lost traction.  Stamkos will probably not wake up in time to help his team.  Pittsburgh is on a Mission from God, and vastly outscored Tampa in the regular season. 

Verdict: Shittsburgh in 5

Hockey Thoughts: Check Yourself

With two weeks and seven games left, it's time to check in on my predictions for the playoff push. 

So far the Preds are outplaying my expectations.  They sometimes ramp it up at the end of the season and surprise me, only to faceplant in the first round.  Looks like we're right on track to do that again this year.  Of the games played so far that I predicted, the Preds have won three games I chalked up as losses (Edmonton, Boston and Buffalo), and lost one I guessed to be a win (L.A.), meaning they are up two games on my predictions.

Of the two teams they were scheduled to play twice (Colorado and Detroit), they won both of the first match-ups.  I predicted they would go one-for-two in each pairing, so we'll see how they pull out the remaining two, still yet to be played (Colorado on Thursday and Detroit next Saturday).

This brings the total points accumulated in the previous eight games to 14, out of a possible 16.  Not bad!  I had conjectured a total of 15 points for the entire rest of the season, so barring some terrible collapse here in the remaining handful of games, they will beat out my prediction, hopefully by quite a bit!  That's a good thing, too, because it is more than clear that 91 total points would not have been enough to get into the 8th spot, and probably not even 12th, when all is said and done.

Tonight the Preds play Dallas, who are sitting in 9th spot with 86 points.  The Preds are in 6th, with 90.  This should be one hell of a game...and one I had predicted as a loss for Nashville.  While I'm encouraged by their play of late, their performance Thursday night against the Ducks was almost embarrassingly catastrophic, and I still don't have much confidence in the team's ability to rise to meet adversity.  I'm still cautiously optimistic, but am not willing to change my prediction of a loss.  I may add an asterisk and change this one to an OT loss, but a loss just the same.

We have tickets to all of the remaining home games this season, so I'm excited to get to watch this run-up to the playoffs live and in person!

As for my Caps, not much has changed.  They've remained on fire, despite a ridiculous loss last night in Ottawa.  The team is holding it together despite Green still out indefinitely, Ovi sitting 7-10 days, and Arnott inexplicably MIA.  They haven't mathematically clinched the Southeast Division yet, but with Tampa holding a modest 89 points to the Caps 96, I think it's all but in the bag for Washington.

The biggest question is whether, with Philly holding two games in hand, if the Caps can pass them for the Conference lead.  Today Philly has 98 points (and again, two games in hand over Washington), but I have confidence that they might just pull it out still.  

What dismays me the most right now is that Shittsburgh also managed to somehow get to 96 points, and I will not be much pleased to see them end the season with more points than the Caps.  Someone needs to get their shit together here, especially with talk of Crosby returning any day now.  Come on Caps, you know you are better than that crappy little team! 

Hockey Thoughts: Playoff Push

I fell asleep with about ten minutes left to play in the Nashville vs. San Jose game last night, the score tied 2-2.  I woke up a few minutes ago and couldn't fall back asleep, so I grabbed the remote and turned it to the NHL Network to check the outcome of the game.  No big surprise, Nashville lost 3-2 in overtime.  San Jose is far enough ahead of us that their win doesn't really hurt us, but our loss does, even with the one point.  Time is running out on the season, and there aren't many "next games" left.

Today is exactly one month, and fifteen games, until the end of the regular season.  I just took a glance at Nashville's remaining schedule and became even more discouraged.  Even though all but a few games are at home, the majority of them are against teams either right above us, or right below us in the standings, making them very important four-point games.  Especially since the Western Conference points race is so tight.

I also noticed that while the points race remains tight, it's getting less so every day.  Just a week or so ago, four points separated 4th place from 12th place.  Today that gap is ten.  The current 12th place team, Columbus, is now all but out.  Five points now separate 4th from 11th, and four points separate 5th from 11th.  The 5th, 6th and 7th place teams are tied, as are the 8th and 9th.  Nashville sits in 10th, on the very cusp of still being in contention for one of the final playoff spots.

Outside the Blackhawks eight game winning streak (which ended last night), no team is really hot or really cold, so it's hard to look at the remaining schedule of the other teams and get an idea of how they are likely to finish. 

Looking at the Preds remaining schedule, six games are against teams with no hope of making the playoffs, but that is actually more dangerous this time of year because those teams tend to be spoilers.  And there have been quite a few games in the last month or so where the "cellar dwelling" teams have pulled some upsets against teams working hard to secure a playoff spot.  It also has seemed to be the case the past few seasons, and even more so this season, that the Preds play to their opponent.  They've already had a heck of a time with most of those teams this year, too.  Therefore, I'm not encouraged that there are a potential twelve points to be had out of these games. 

I'm going to guess they get one of two against Colorado, lose to Edmonton (who they've struggled to beat all year), and Atlanta--for a pickup of two points in those four games.  I'm split on Columbus, though, because even though we've had a hard time with them this season and I'm inclined to chalk it up as a loss, it is the last home game and the Preds usually pull out a win for the "Fangtastic Fanale."  So, I'll give that one a wary win, and I think they will beat St. Louis in St. Louis for the last game of the season.  That brings the total there to six points out of a possible twelve.

As for the teams that are still in playoff contention, I'll start with Detroit.  We have two home games remaining against the Wings.  The Wings have a pretty comfortable lead on the Division, so long as Chicago mellows out a bit, which I think they will.  Detroit will want to hit the 100-point mark, though, and are usually closer at this point in the season it seems, but only need fourteen (out of a remaining thirty two) points to get there.  These games are pride games, too, meaning I don't expect Detroit to roll over, but they also aren't stupid--the second game is very close to the end of the season and they aren't going to go balls to the wall if they don't have to, heading into the playoffs.  So, I expect the Preds to get two points out of those games, if not all four.  But I can safely give them two, so we'll go with that.

Next up is the game this Thursday against Minnesota, who is sitting in 9th, one point ahead of us today.  Minnesota has been quietly advancing in the standings for the last two months, very much under the radar.  Nashville always seems to have trouble with them.  This one is a tough call for me, but I think Minnesota coming off a win and Nashville coming off a loss, might give Nashville the edge--IF they can start playing with some urgency, that I have not seen to-date.  So I'm reluctantly giving Nashville one point in this one, because I feel that if they lose, it will be an OT loss, and if they get two, then that just improves their chances over my calculations.  One point is the safe answer here.

After that we have L.A., currently sitting in 8th, but tied in points with Minnesota in 9th.  L.A. seems to have multiple personality disorder this season and some issues with confidence, given that they were projected to be a juggernaut this season and fell flat.  We've had issues with them, especially that 8-1 whacking back in December, but I'm calling this one for Nashville.  So two more points.

Boston is next in line, and I'm not even hesitating to call this one for Boston.  They are simply a stronger team, and even though their playoff spot is secure, their lead in their Division is not, and they want home ice advantage in the first round, so I expect them to play full-tilt.  Nashville also has not done well against Eastern Conference teams this season.  Aside from that, they have the only goalie in the league with better stats than Rinne, and since Nashville still has an inability to score, I don't see this one going our way.  Zero points against Boston.

Nashville then faces Buffalo, in Buffalo, and again I have no hesitation calling it for Buffalo--and for many of the same reasons that apply to Boston.  Buffalo is playing exceptionally well right now, but is barely hanging on to the 8th seed in the East.  They will put up a fight.  They have outstanding goaltending, as well, which will stump our shooters.  It's also an early afternoon game, and the Preds haven't tended to do well with games outside of the regular time slot this season.  I guess their internal clocks get thrown off.  Who the hell knows!  But zero points in Buffalo.

Then we come back home to face Anaheim.  The Ducks currently sit in 11th place, the final slot with hopes of making the playoffs.  Of course, there's two weeks between now and then, so their position will likely change, but I don't see them making a strong run of it and advancing much.  Selanne typically has our number, but I think Nashville will take this one, especially if Dan Ellis is in goal for them, and he likely will be.  Ellis is a sensitive goalie, in that it's very easy to get inside his head, and once you have, he's done for.  being back in Nashville will probably rattle him enough to get a few pucks by him, and into the net.  Two points here for Nashville.

Dallas comes into town next, and I'm calling this one for Dallas.  They currently sit in 5th, three points ahead of Nashville.  We typically put up a decent fight against Dallas, especially at home, and I have nothing to base my guess on, really, except that Nashville can't seem to string up back-to-back wins this year to save their lives.  I don't expect that to change down the stretch--if I did, I wouldn't be so doubtful of their playoff chances.  Nashville also seems to choke in front of the sell-out home crowds this season, and since this is a Saturday game against a popular team, and one of the last games, it should be a sell-out or near one.  So, a previous win against Anaheim plus a capacity crowd equals zero points against Dallas.

That brings us to the final game about which to prognosticate: Vancouver.  With a fair amount of confidence I'm giving this one to Nashville, for similar reasons to the Detroit match-ups.  Nashville has finally started giving Vancouver some headaches this season.  Even though Vancouver is red-hot, sitting in first with a mind-numbing and league-leading 96 points, I think they will have let off the gas some by that point in the season.  They all but have a lock on their Division today (2nd place belongs to Calgary with 79 points), and will likely have secured 1st in the Conference by that time as well as the President's Trophy.  They are going to want to rest up and be ready for the playoffs.  Vancouver is usually very aggressive and dirty, but they aren't going to want to risk any more injuries just two weeks out from the start of the playoffs.  So, two points to Nashville.

That gives the Preds exactly half of the available remaining points, at fifteen, which would bring their season total to ninety one.  Given the teams sitting directly above them, that could be enough to squeak in by the hair on their chinny chin chins.  There's not much threat from anyone behind Nashville, but jumping those ahead of us won't be easy.  At an absolute minimum they will need at least those fifteen points.  Anything less and they are probably toast.  Anything more, well, that would be better.  Expectations, on my part, are certainly tempered.

 

Hockey Thoughts: Ruts

Seems an abnormal number of teams are stuck in ruts right now, with 5, 6, 7+ game losing streaks.  Or winning streaks.  Some teams seem to be overwhelmed in some sort of malaise while others seem unstoppable. 

The Caps have been a rut team lately, not scoring, and not doing much of anything except losing.  Last night they had some sort of flashback to the team they used to be, squeaking out a win in a scoring bonanza with the Ducks 7-6.  I'm pretty sure they haven't scored 7 goals in all of their games since the start of 2011.  That makes two goals in three games for The Great Eight.  Semin, back only a couple of games, has made is return known as well.  He scored the other night, and then racked up his 7th career hat trick, giving him four on the season tying him for the league lead in that category.  Some hockey prognosticators have wanted to label this a sign of a return of the Caps of old, but I'm going to flag it as a fluke more than anything.  Unless Boudreau has given up on his "new system," which I doubt he has, I think this was an exception and not the rule. 

I actually snoozed through much of the game because I strained my neck the other day and was "relaxing" on my heating pad on the couch, which resulted in a drowsy Jennifer.  I fell asleep after Ovechkin's goal that tied the match 1-1, and woke up during the second period to find it tied 4-4.  Then it seemed like no one scored for either team unless I was out of the room or otherwise not paying attention to the TV.  So, I can't really speak to what went right or wrong in that particular game, but  I expect to see the Caps continue to flounder their way to the end of the season, and maybe into one of the last playoff spots.  They currently sit in 5th, only 2 points behind their Division leader Tampa Bay.  Even though the 4th place team (Shittsburgh) has 76 points, they only need to surpass Tampa to jump into 2nd or 3rd.  Additionally, 8 points separate them in the 5th spot from the 8th spot currently held by Carolina.  So, there are less hurdles ahead of them in the standings and plenty of room behind them.

As for the Preds, losing had become the norm again.  After putting up one hell of a fight against the Sharks on Tuesday they lost in OT on a major facepalm play by their defense.  It was an inexcusable and epic breakdown of their defense that led to the GWG, and since I didn't see the game I can't really discuss the overall play of the team in this instance.  I do know that Trotz scratched Dumont to "send a message" but I'm not clear on the message he was trying to send?  He's always loathe to bench his "stars" so when he does, it means someone's in the dog house, but I'm not sure Legwand will get the message by benching Dumont.  While Dumont's play has been nothing to write home about, I can specifically remember him contributing on more occasions recently than Legwand.  I know I'm hard on Legwand all the time so it's probably easy for me to overlook what he might be doing right, but after hearing his combined stats for the past three seasons on the radio the other day he had not managed to make it off my shit list. 

More than anything the Preds seem to be suffering from bouts of bad luck when it comes to scoring.  I can't describe it any other way.  They've had plenty of games in recent weeks where they are actually taking shots and getting in front of the net, but nothing seems to go in.  I don't know how you fix that problem.  They do seem to be reverting to a passing game again, however, and that's never been (and probably never will be) this team's strong suit with the players they currently have.  If they focus on puck control by way of short passes and maintaining control in the neutral zone, they can win games.  One notable trend I've noticed in the games where they've struggled and/or loss, is the inability to maintain any semblance of composure in the neutral zone.

I'll let "The Coach" explain the neutral zone, since he does it better than I do:


Unlike the Caps, the Preds aren't going to be able to flounder and coast into the post season.  The Eastern Conference is tight, but not anywhere near as tight as the Western Conference.  As of this morning, the Preds are sitting in 4th place with 68 points...but all five teams from 4th-8th have 68 points!!!  A measly 6 points separates 4th-8th from 12th right now.  Nasvhille is also 6 points behind Division leading Detroit, so it's still within reach to win the division and vault into 2nd or 3rd.  All that to say they need to get their shit together because every single game from now through the second week of April MATTERS.

Hockey Thoughts: Gone Fishing

Nashville acquired Mike Fisher from the Ottawa Senators on Thursday in a pre-deadline deal that actually seemed to make a little sense for a change.  He's not a "rental player," and even though I'm a little uncomfortable with what his contract dictates he get paid, I was happy to see the Preds pick up a player with long-term potential.  As someone pointed out to me, rental players are par for the NHL course at this point in the season, but it's not Nashville's M.O. and Nashville doesn't operate like the majority of teams in the league, so rental players aren't necessarily something the Preds need to be shopping for at the deadline.  I like seeing trades that work with our "system" and this fits the bill.


Do I think Fisher is a great player?  No.  Is he a good player?  Yes.  I've gone on record saying that I didn't want him, but I do recognize that he was probably one of the best players available this season.  The main reason I didn't want him was because I wasn't sold that Nashville even needed to make a move at the deadline.  Beyond that, I know that the fact he is "Mr. Carrie Underwood" is a distraction and sideshow particularly here in Nashville.  It is a little too cute and cliche for my liking but from a hockey perspective it's still a good deal. 


I have hopes that this trade will pan out more like the Sullivan deal several years ago, where we got a strong player who fit well with the team and provides a much-needed boost in fan interest (even if the reason for the interest in Fisher annoys the shit out of me).  Adding to my pleasure is the fact that Nashville gave up a first round draft pick to get him.  Drafting is a crucial part of building a team, and continuing to operate a team on a shoestring budget, but I'm hoping that the Preds are growing out of that position and that this marks a shift from relying solely on drafting players and grooming them well.  Particularly since we've let some of our good draft picks that we've groomed go under less than advantageous circumstances. 

Despite the fact Fisher had not practiced with the whole team before Saturday's game, he fit in well with his line mates.  He produced a good screen on Nashville's first goal of the night (coming 11 seconds after Colorado's first), which was essential to maintain momentum and notched an official assist on the last goal of the night (which was the GWG).  So, welcome to Smashville Mike Fisher, we're glad to have you!

Hopefully his personal connection to Nashville will ease his transition to the team.  He won't have to worry about finding a house and one of the most stressful elements of his off-ice life--living in a different city than his new bride--has been remedied.  Fisher has played all eleven years of his career in Ottawa, so it's nice that this trade isn't too painful for him personally.  I'd like to see this pay off on the ice, as well.  As it turns out, Mr. and Mrs. Fisher live in The Governor's Club in Brentwood, which is about three miles from my neighborhood.  It would be pretty cool to see him at the grocery store some time.  But somehow I have a feeling they don't do their own shopping.  Celebrities still run out of milk late at night, though, don't they?  ;)

As an added bonus, Canadians have their panties in a wad over the deal.  Some Ottawa fans are happy for him and I commend them for their good sportsmanship.  But apparently since Gretsky married and American then was traded to Los Angeles, Canadians are sensitive to their star players marrying an American celebrity and getting traded to an American team.  Some of the testier Canadians are upset and blaming Carrie Underwood, and it's been reported that the country radio station in Ottawa has banned all Carrie Underwood songs from the air.  Given their general disdain for Nashville as a hockey market I can't help but be a little tickled at this news.  Sorry fellas, sometimes life sucks, eh?

Hockey Thoughts: Milk and Cookies

Is Matt Cooke a dirty player?  That was the question of the night on Tuesday.  Surely it was meant as a rhetorical question.

I'm not a big supporter of the "repeat offender" rule when it comes to doling out supplementary discipline, but when answering a question about a player's overall nature and/or playing style, I think it's perfectly acceptable to look at their track record.  The answer for Cooke is indisputable.

Ignoring his long history of being a first class ass hole (2 suspensions per season the last three seasons, and several other incidents that should have led to suspensions if not for Campbell's ineptitude) still leads one to conclude that he's, well...a first class ass hole.  In just the previous twelve months or so he's been responsible for the prelude to what is possibly a career-ending injury (to Savard of the Bruins) plus many additional hits that can only be called dirty.  Twice in as many games (Sunday and Tuesday) he hit with the intent to injure.  First was the knee on Ovechkin then came the ambush from behind against the boards on Tyutin.  Here's hoping Tyutin isn't hurt.  Ovechkin didn't seem to be.  Cooke is lucky in both instances.

In fact, his hit on Savard was THE driving factor behind the creation of "Rule 48," also known as the "hits to the head" rule.  If a professional sports league has to create a rule just for you I think the label of "troublemaker" is more than justified.  See also: Sean Avery.

No team should put up with a player like Matt Cooke.  They should not make excuses for his play, and they shouldn't coddle that behavior.  The primary responsibility for stopping this type of behavior should fall on the coach and the teammates of said "ass hole."  The "he was responding to X" line of reasoning doesn't work, boys.  They teach you as a child that two wrongs don't make a right.  Respond within the rules of the game or get off the ice.

And while no team should quietly condone plays like the ones Matt Cooke makes, Pittsburgh in particular at this very moment can't.  Not after the fit they've pitched about Crosby's concussion.  The hockey media has done their part in the hours immediately following the Tyutin hit to condemn Matt Cooke.  I want to see Bylsma do the same.  Nothing less will do.

And if the league is serious about Rule 48, they need to enforce it on it's inspiration. 

Hockey Thoughts: Blanked

I was preparing a post tonight about the awesome shut-out the Preds handed the Wings on Saturday night...then they dropped that huge turd tonight and much of what I was going to say seems, well, stupid.

No, no, I know...they still played very well on Saturday and it was an exciting game to watch.  But they still got blanked themselves, by the Oilers no less, tonight, so I'm not going to prognosticate about all the improvements they've made of late, blah, blah, blah.  Even the best teams get handed a tough loss by the worst teams from time to time, but I'm not sold on the Preds ability to make this run down the stretch.  Not just yet.  Not after watching them roll over like that.  These are the games they need to win.  Right now the focus should be on points.  Points.  Points. 

I'm reserving judgement until the end of the week, after another match against Detroit (on the road) and Colorado (at home).

In other news, The Caps blanked the Pens on Sunday at Verizon Center.  According to the NBC announcers (whom I don't really trust with hockey stats) that was the first time that happened since 1991.  Good for them.  They put a serious whoopin' on Tampa Friday night, as well.  I'm also reserving judgement on the Caps performance of late until I've seen a few more games out of them, too.  They've been as streaky (and disappointing) as the Preds lately, so until they string together more than two wins in a row, I'm unconvinced. 

Mike Green took a puck to the ear, so I need to see how that plays out.  Semin is supposed to return soon.  Winning the Division isn't key, but having their shit together is. 

Finally, in what was probably the best hockey news of the week, Malkin is out for the remainder of the season and we might not see Crosby until the playoffs.  I'll limit my comments on that, but if I could show you the party inside my head I would.  This has been happy-happy news for me, even though the Pens have found a way to win without them so far.  The stretch run might be harder.  I don't care if the Pens make the playoffs or not, honestly, I just don't want them to win another cup.  And I seriously doubt they can go all the way without those two guys.