Three good pieces on post-surge Iraq:
1. Surging and Awakening--TNR by Dexter Filkens:
President Obama's pronouncements on the war must therefore be read carefully. He has never said that America will leave Iraq by 2010. He has said only that American combat troops will leave. What is a combat troop? Well, you can bet it is not a military adviser, or a trainer, or a police mentor, or a special forces soldier, or a CIA paramilitary. Even under the best of circumstances, the Iraqi state will need many years to cohere again. Until that day, it seems unlikely that American soldiers will not be there by the tens of thousands, whoever the American president is. For this reason, the president may be a little divided against himself. His rhetoric of winding-down may be politically welcome, but may not be the best way to ready the American people for what will likely be a very long commitment.
2. The Future of Iraq, Part I by Michael J. Totten:
"The insurgency now is more criminal than anything else," Colonel Hort said. “The Al Qaeda threat isn't down to that point yet, but Shia insurgents are becoming more and more criminal than anything else. We're working closely now with Iraqi judges, as well as Iraqi Security Forces, to ensure that when we identify a guy we're getting a warrant and arresting the guy that way. It's a significant change for us that we now need a warrant to make an arrest like we do in the States."
Some American officers I met are worried that more terrorists and insurgents will remain at large now that warrants are needed for their arrest, but others are convinced this is wonderful news. It is, at least for the time being, just barely possible to wage a counterinsurgency using law enforcement methods instead of war-fighting methods. There is such a thing as an acceptable level of violence, and Iraq is nearer to that point than it has been in years. Baghdad is no longer the war zone it was.
3. Toll Rises as Iraq Slows Surge--WSJ.com:
The U.S. military has passed off the responsibility for Awakening forces, which have numbered more than 100,000 fighters across Iraq, but Baghdad hasn't paid them in full. Since the government took over Mr. Karim's group in January, it has provided just one month's pay.
Iraq's government says it has addressed bureaucratic snags in the program's transition and that the fighters will be paid. Even so, the budget for Awakening salaries runs out at year's end.
U.S. commanders worry that if Baghdad doesn't foot the bill, group members could become a threat again. The U.S. military believes that recent car bombings in Baghdad were hatched somewhere in this belt of rugged farming villages.
After all the sacrifice in blood and treasure that the US has made in Iraq, it would shameful if we were to let it all slip away because the Iraqi government can't afford to continue to support the successful tactics of the surge. If we're going to commit foreign aid to any effort, this is it.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Hat Trick Part One
Three good pieces on health care:
1. Pajamas Media--Health Care Reform vs. Universal Health Care by Paul Hsieh:
According to a recent CNN poll, 8 out of 10 Americans are generally happy with their current health care. But they are legitimately concerned about rising costs. Furthermore, the constant media drumbeat about our health care "crisis" is making most Americans think that everybody else is having a rough time with health care (even if they themselves are doing relatively well). This fuels the false perception that we need drastic change in the form of government-managed "universal health care." In fact, the opposite is true. If Americans are satisfied with their health care quality but unhappy with rising costs, then the proper course is free-market reforms that lower costs, preserve quality, and respect individual rights.
2. How ObamaCare Will Affect Your Doctor-- WSJ.com by Scott Gottlieb:
There are also measures available that could fix structural flaws in our delivery system and make coverage more affordable without top-down controls set in Washington. The surest way to intensify flaws in the delivery of health care is to extend a Medicare-like "public option" into more corners of the private market. More government control of doctors and their reimbursement schemes will only create more problems.
3. 45 Centrist Democrats Protest Secrecy of Health Care Talks--NYTimes.com:
Centrist Democrats said they fully endorsed President Obama's goal of guaranteeing access to health insurance and health care for all. But, they said, they are concerned about the cost of the legislation, which could easily top $1 trillion over 10 years. And they want to be sure that the role of any new government-sponsored insurance program, expected to be a centerpiece of the bill, is carefully delineated.
Many Blue Dogs come from usually Republican districts or swing districts and see their stance on health care as vital to their political survival. By contrast, the committee chairmen writing the House bill have safe Democratic seats.
1. Pajamas Media--Health Care Reform vs. Universal Health Care by Paul Hsieh:
According to a recent CNN poll, 8 out of 10 Americans are generally happy with their current health care. But they are legitimately concerned about rising costs. Furthermore, the constant media drumbeat about our health care "crisis" is making most Americans think that everybody else is having a rough time with health care (even if they themselves are doing relatively well). This fuels the false perception that we need drastic change in the form of government-managed "universal health care." In fact, the opposite is true. If Americans are satisfied with their health care quality but unhappy with rising costs, then the proper course is free-market reforms that lower costs, preserve quality, and respect individual rights.
2. How ObamaCare Will Affect Your Doctor-- WSJ.com by Scott Gottlieb:
There are also measures available that could fix structural flaws in our delivery system and make coverage more affordable without top-down controls set in Washington. The surest way to intensify flaws in the delivery of health care is to extend a Medicare-like "public option" into more corners of the private market. More government control of doctors and their reimbursement schemes will only create more problems.
3. 45 Centrist Democrats Protest Secrecy of Health Care Talks--NYTimes.com:
Centrist Democrats said they fully endorsed President Obama's goal of guaranteeing access to health insurance and health care for all. But, they said, they are concerned about the cost of the legislation, which could easily top $1 trillion over 10 years. And they want to be sure that the role of any new government-sponsored insurance program, expected to be a centerpiece of the bill, is carefully delineated.
Many Blue Dogs come from usually Republican districts or swing districts and see their stance on health care as vital to their political survival. By contrast, the committee chairmen writing the House bill have safe Democratic seats.
Runnin' Dew
If you've ever seen an old bottle of Mountain Dew, you know the beverage has a most interesting history:
Originally the name Mountain Dew was another euphemism for moonshine. In the early 40s, the first batch of Dew was made as a lemon-flavored soda to to be used as a mixer for 'shine that was too potent.
The battles between the back country folk making moonshine and the hated Federal revenuers are legendary. Now, if Nanny Statists and their Congressional allies have their way, it won't only be moonshine that the Feds are trying to tax, but the soda mixer:
Proponents of the tax cite research showing that consuming sugar-sweetened drinks can lead to obesity, diabetes and other ailments. They say the tax would lower consumption, reduce health problems and save medical costs. At least a dozen states already have some type of taxes on sugary beverages, said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
"Soda is clearly one of the most harmful products in the food supply, and it's something government should discourage the consumption of," Mr. Jacobson said.
Sanctimonious BS is clearly one of the most harmful attitudes in our society, and it's something everyone should discourage the acceptance of.
In case you're one of those "I don't drink soda, so why should I care?" folks, realize that like attempts to ban, tax, and demonize smoking, this is just the beginning:
Health advocates are floating other so-called sin tax proposals and food regulations as part of the government's health-care overhaul. Mr. Jacobson also plans to propose Tuesday that the government sharply raise taxes on alcohol, move to largely eliminate artificial trans fat from food and move to reduce the sodium content in packaged and restaurant food.
So in the guise of the "public interest," Nanny Statists like Jacobson want to impose additional costs on the MILLIONS of healthy Americans who drink alcohol and like food that tastes good (even if it is a little fatty and salty)? We can manage our eating and drinking choices just fine on our own, thank you very much. I think it would be in the "public interest" if these busy-body do-gooders would just mind their own fargin' business for a change.
As usual in matters of our increasingly nannified state, David Harsanyi wisely weighs in:
Beyond the health issues, you may want to ask yourself if it's appropriate for government to use taxes as a tool for strategic social engineering.
Isn't it counterproductive to pass one-size- fits-all punitive taxes that target the recreational ginger ale drinker along with the depraved Coca Cola abuser?
Or is it government's job to provide transparency, allowing consumers to make smart decisions, or not, about what they ingest?
Giving people the freedom to choose? How quaint.
UPDATE-- My better half e-mails to ask:
When it's voting season, politicians have the notion that people should vote for who they want and it's a persons right to vote (voters are smart). However, when in office, many tend to think they need to pass laws to regulate a persons everyday lives because they are too stupid i.e. bad food taxing.
On that note: maybe the gov't should ration our food. We stand in line for our food items on a daily basis and they decide what we eat....doesn't this sound like another gov't system that collapsed???
And Simon e-mails to connect some dots:
So Democrats are going to raise taxes on soda, snacks, cigarettes and alcohol to pay for socialized medicine.
But here is candidate Obama promising that families making less than $250,000 a year will not see ANY of their taxes raised.
I guess it's acceptable to tax us non-wealthy people when it's for our own good.
Exactly. After all, they do know what's best for the "public interest."
Originally the name Mountain Dew was another euphemism for moonshine. In the early 40s, the first batch of Dew was made as a lemon-flavored soda to to be used as a mixer for 'shine that was too potent.
The battles between the back country folk making moonshine and the hated Federal revenuers are legendary. Now, if Nanny Statists and their Congressional allies have their way, it won't only be moonshine that the Feds are trying to tax, but the soda mixer:
Proponents of the tax cite research showing that consuming sugar-sweetened drinks can lead to obesity, diabetes and other ailments. They say the tax would lower consumption, reduce health problems and save medical costs. At least a dozen states already have some type of taxes on sugary beverages, said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
"Soda is clearly one of the most harmful products in the food supply, and it's something government should discourage the consumption of," Mr. Jacobson said.
Sanctimonious BS is clearly one of the most harmful attitudes in our society, and it's something everyone should discourage the acceptance of.
In case you're one of those "I don't drink soda, so why should I care?" folks, realize that like attempts to ban, tax, and demonize smoking, this is just the beginning:
Health advocates are floating other so-called sin tax proposals and food regulations as part of the government's health-care overhaul. Mr. Jacobson also plans to propose Tuesday that the government sharply raise taxes on alcohol, move to largely eliminate artificial trans fat from food and move to reduce the sodium content in packaged and restaurant food.
So in the guise of the "public interest," Nanny Statists like Jacobson want to impose additional costs on the MILLIONS of healthy Americans who drink alcohol and like food that tastes good (even if it is a little fatty and salty)? We can manage our eating and drinking choices just fine on our own, thank you very much. I think it would be in the "public interest" if these busy-body do-gooders would just mind their own fargin' business for a change.
As usual in matters of our increasingly nannified state, David Harsanyi wisely weighs in:
Beyond the health issues, you may want to ask yourself if it's appropriate for government to use taxes as a tool for strategic social engineering.
Isn't it counterproductive to pass one-size- fits-all punitive taxes that target the recreational ginger ale drinker along with the depraved Coca Cola abuser?
Or is it government's job to provide transparency, allowing consumers to make smart decisions, or not, about what they ingest?
Giving people the freedom to choose? How quaint.
UPDATE-- My better half e-mails to ask:
When it's voting season, politicians have the notion that people should vote for who they want and it's a persons right to vote (voters are smart). However, when in office, many tend to think they need to pass laws to regulate a persons everyday lives because they are too stupid i.e. bad food taxing.
On that note: maybe the gov't should ration our food. We stand in line for our food items on a daily basis and they decide what we eat....doesn't this sound like another gov't system that collapsed???
And Simon e-mails to connect some dots:
So Democrats are going to raise taxes on soda, snacks, cigarettes and alcohol to pay for socialized medicine.
But here is candidate Obama promising that families making less than $250,000 a year will not see ANY of their taxes raised.
I guess it's acceptable to tax us non-wealthy people when it's for our own good.
Exactly. After all, they do know what's best for the "public interest."
1979 Semi-Finalist
The NHL conference semi-final playoff series could really have not gone any better so far.
In the West, the Blackhawks--my adopted team for this year's Cup run--knocked off the hated Canucks in six. Meanwhile, the not-quite-as-hated Ducks have pushed the despised Red Wings to a seventh game. If the Ducks win the series, I'll be happy because the Wings will be dead. If Detroit wins, it sets up a terrific conference final matchup between the Wings and the Hawks. Yes, there is some history there.
In the East, the Bruins have come on strong in the last two games to knot their series with the hated 'Canes at three. I expect that they will be able to dispatch Carolina at home in Game Seven on Thursday. If not, much shame and ridicule will be heaped upon them.
Then we have the Caps and Pens. Three of the first six games in this series have gone to OT and its featured some of the best playoff hockey in years. It's more than just Ovechkin and Crosby too. Both teams feature highly-skilled players who are not afraid to open it up. Not a lot of neutral zone trapping or left wing locking going on with these teams. Just a lot of fast-paced, high-intensity skating, passing, shooting, stick-handling, and hitting. It has been a joy to watch and the only disappointing thing about tonight's Game Seven showdown is that the series has to end.
6pm central tonight on Versus. You don't want to miss this one.
In the West, the Blackhawks--my adopted team for this year's Cup run--knocked off the hated Canucks in six. Meanwhile, the not-quite-as-hated Ducks have pushed the despised Red Wings to a seventh game. If the Ducks win the series, I'll be happy because the Wings will be dead. If Detroit wins, it sets up a terrific conference final matchup between the Wings and the Hawks. Yes, there is some history there.
In the East, the Bruins have come on strong in the last two games to knot their series with the hated 'Canes at three. I expect that they will be able to dispatch Carolina at home in Game Seven on Thursday. If not, much shame and ridicule will be heaped upon them.
Then we have the Caps and Pens. Three of the first six games in this series have gone to OT and its featured some of the best playoff hockey in years. It's more than just Ovechkin and Crosby too. Both teams feature highly-skilled players who are not afraid to open it up. Not a lot of neutral zone trapping or left wing locking going on with these teams. Just a lot of fast-paced, high-intensity skating, passing, shooting, stick-handling, and hitting. It has been a joy to watch and the only disappointing thing about tonight's Game Seven showdown is that the series has to end.
6pm central tonight on Versus. You don't want to miss this one.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
When Fragging Government Officials Was Still Funny
CBS sportscaster David Feherty has visited the troops in Iraq a couple of times. This experience and what he heard from the troops apparently informed his recent controversial comments in D Magazine. Comments which have led to national media outrage, pressure groups calling for his firing, his employers denouncing him, and ultimately an apology and retraction of his comments as inappropriate and unacceptable.
The full context of his universally reviled comments:
From January of 2005, on MSNBC, Chris Matthews interviewing none other than the presumptive next Senator from the Great state of Minnesota who had these remarkably similar comments to Faherty:
Not clear is whether it was Franken and/or Matthews who was laughing it up. Only the MSNBC transcriptionist knows for sure.
Needless to say, there was no controversy over Franken's comments on national TV. He tells his stories about the assassination of top government officials, gets his laughs, gets the unqualified support of liberals and the Democrat party, and merrily goes on his way to (probably) getting elected to the US Senate. What a country!
If only the media deemed the comments of a liberal US Senate candidate as important as a conservative CBS golf analyst, we might have been spared this whole recount drama. Even in Minnesota, I have to believe that's worth at least 322 votes for Norm Coleman.
The full context of his universally reviled comments:
My own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this, though: despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death.Even shock-academic Camile Paglia was taken aback. Her comments in Salon Magazine indicate she thinks this is a new level of public indecency:
I was utterly horrified to hear Dallas-based talk show host Mark Davis, subbing for Rush Limbaugh, laughingly and approvingly read a passage from a Dallas magazine article by CBS sportscaster David Feherty claiming that "any U.S. soldier," given a gun with two bullets and stuck in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, would use both bullets on Pelosi and strangle the other two.To be sure, she's right about the impropriety of these kinds of gutter level, unfunny jokes being carelessly thrown around in the mass media. But she's dead wrong in assessing this as a new low for national broadcasting. There's nothing new about celebrities in the entertainment business going to Iraq and coming back trying to play soldiers' fragging fantasies for laughs.
How have we come to this pass in America where the assassination of top government officials is fodder for snide jokes on national radio?
From January of 2005, on MSNBC, Chris Matthews interviewing none other than the presumptive next Senator from the Great state of Minnesota who had these remarkably similar comments to Faherty:
I actually had an officer who - I obviously won't say who he was - who said to me, listen, George W. Bush is my commander in chief. I have to respect him. But if I got Rumsfeld in my sights, I would not hesitate to squeeze off a couple rounds.(Originally linked to in this Fraters post in 2005.)
(LAUGHTER)
Not clear is whether it was Franken and/or Matthews who was laughing it up. Only the MSNBC transcriptionist knows for sure.
Needless to say, there was no controversy over Franken's comments on national TV. He tells his stories about the assassination of top government officials, gets his laughs, gets the unqualified support of liberals and the Democrat party, and merrily goes on his way to (probably) getting elected to the US Senate. What a country!
If only the media deemed the comments of a liberal US Senate candidate as important as a conservative CBS golf analyst, we might have been spared this whole recount drama. Even in Minnesota, I have to believe that's worth at least 322 votes for Norm Coleman.
Stop Encouraging Her
The federal budget deficit for FY 2009 has now been projected at $1.85 trillion dollars. Four times larger than it has ever been in US history. An economic disaster of unprecedented proportions, throwing into question our ability to meet our national financial commitments in the near and long term.
Voters across the country might be wondering, where their Congressional Representatives are during this critical time. For those in St. Paul, the answer is their Representative has been accepting an award for her generosity with your money.
I get the sense only two things would be sufficient to stop this run-away train of fiscal excess:
1) The United States spends so much we join the ranks of the globally impoverished or
2) The beneficiaries of her generosity with your money stop giving her awards.
Unfortunately, I think the former is more likely than the latter.
Voters across the country might be wondering, where their Congressional Representatives are during this critical time. For those in St. Paul, the answer is their Representative has been accepting an award for her generosity with your money.
Rep. Betty McCollum Honored as Champion for Children at Capitol Hill Event This WeekWe're already spending multiple trillions per year of money we don't have and she's calling for us to "prioritize" welfare spending on other countries in the sum of additional untold millions. Or maybe billions? Her bill doesn't stipulate and doesn't much care:
"I am grateful to Save the Children for honoring me with the distinction of Congressional Champion for Real and Lasting Change. I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress and President Obama's administration to prioritize programs that will improve the quality of life for children around the world as our nation works to fight global poverty, disease, and hunger," Rep. McCollum said.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.Even now, it's business as usual for Betty McCollum. At what size does the annual deficit need to grow to before she stops spending your money to fight such things as "global poverty"? $5 trillion? $10 trillion? $100 trillion?
(a) In General- There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2014.
(b) Availability of Funds- Amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations under subsection (a) are authorized to remain available until expended.
I get the sense only two things would be sufficient to stop this run-away train of fiscal excess:
1) The United States spends so much we join the ranks of the globally impoverished or
2) The beneficiaries of her generosity with your money stop giving her awards.
Unfortunately, I think the former is more likely than the latter.
Off With His Cred
It's been nearly five years since I dropped my subscription to the Minneapolis Star Tribune. One of the hardest things about giving up the local paper is missing out on the sports coverage. Yes, you can get everything a paper provides and more on the 'net, but there's still something lacking when you don't have it at your fingertips.
So I was pleased When the Wall Street Journal recently expanded their sports coverage. They now offer a small daily dose of sports in addition to the irregular articles that usually appear in the weekend editions. It's only a page, but it's better than naught.
This expanded coverage has meant more hockey stories too. Not nearly enough to sate my appetite, but again better than before.
After reading one article last month on Why the Red Wings Are Such Sackless Wusses (actual title "Why The Red Wings Don't Fight") I was tempted to upbraid the author, Reed Albergotti, for a glaring misstatement:
Fights have always broken out during physical hockey games, but in the 1960s it became a strategy. The Boston Bruins and Philadelphia Flyers used intimidation to win Stanley Cups between 1969 and 1975. Without players who specialized in fisticuffs, a team's star players would be beaten to a pulp.
In the 1980s, the NHL doubled the number of divisional games teams played, creating more intense inter-divisional rivalries that sparked even more fighting and led to the advent of the bench-clearing brawl. The league averaged an all-time high of one fight per game in the mid-80s.
The advent of the bench-clearing brawl occurred in the 1980s? Not bloody likely. While there may have been more bench-clearers in the 80s than in other decades, they started long before that. You can find easily find videos online of a 1970 brawl between Montreal and Boston.
But don't just take my word for it. Take this:
The NHL instituted Rule 72, just months later, in the summer of 1987 - basically suspending any player for leaving the bench for 10 games, without pay. Coaches also faced suspension and fines as high as $10,000.
The rule was seen as a slow, but necessary, reaction by the NHL to what really started in the early 1970s shortly after expansion. When the league grew by six teams in 1967-68, then added two more in 1972-73 and another pair in 1974-75, the talent pool became diluted. Clubs lacking skill found that fighting and intimidation created another avenue to winning hockey games - highlighted by two Stanley Cup wins by the notorious Philadelphia Flyers.
Bench-clearing was in decline by the mid-1980s, and was nearly completely eradicated from the game after Rule 72 hit the books.
More evidence is supplied by this list of NHL Bench-Clearing Brawls by year. This particular one will bring back fond memories for North Star fans.
So no, the advent of the bench-clearing brawl did not happen in the 1980s. But being a generous sort I elected to give Mr. Albergotti a pass on his error at the time (plus I was a little concerned about the sort of associations a gentleman with his surname might have).
However, this claim by Albergotti in another hockey piece in Friday's WSJ on Alex Ovechkin called A Game-Changer From Moscow, forces me to break my silence (and possibly enter the witness protection program):
With the Ovechkin-Crosby matchup, the NHL finally got its long-desired showcase for talent. Hockey has had terrible luck in its playoff matchups. Its last set of superstars, Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux, never met in the postseason, even though their careers overlapped for 12 seasons. In the first game of the series, Messrs. Ovechkin and Crosby both scored in the first period. In the second game, they scored three goals each, the fourth time two opposing players have done that in the playoffs. And Wednesday night, the game went into overtime. Pittsburgh is 43-28, all time, against the Capitals in playoffs.
Hockey has had terrible luck its playoff matchups? Really? Funny 'cause I've been a hockey fan for a long, long time and I've never heard that before.
While it is true that some of the recent Finals matchups haven't been classics, it's because the teams involved aren't traditional hockey powers. When you have Carolina, Anaheim, and Tampa Bay playing for (and winning) the Cup, it does take a little luster off the most famous trophy in all of sport. But that's hardly what I would call "terrible luck."
Yes, it would have been interesting if Gretzky and Lemieux had met in the playoffs. But the comparison between them and Ovechkin and Crosby is quite inapt. While their careers did overlap, they weren't both at the top of their game at that same time as Ovechkin (23 years old) and Crosby (21) are now. Gretzky's best five years were probably 81-82 through 85-86 while Lemieux's were 87-88 through 92-93 (he was hurt most of the 90-91 season--except for the playoffs of course).
But worse than that is falling into the tired trap of comparing the NHL to the NBA. This isn't about loving hockey or hatin' on basketball. The games and leagues are just different and the constant comparisons are annoying.
The NBA is all about individual stars, matchups, and one on one battles. For the most part, the NHL is not. The reason that NHL playoffs series are great is not because of the star players involved, it's because of the teams. The rivalries, the geography, and the history is what usually sets them apart.
Yes, Gretzky was part of the great Edmonton teams of the 80s. But he wasn't the main reason the Oilers-Flames playoff series were so heated. Think about Detroit-Colorado during the Nineties or the Boston-Montreal playoff rivalry that has been rekindled during recent years. The great players on those teams are part of the story no doubt, but they are not the keys to those compelling playoff plots.
So instead of worrying about whether Ovechkin vs. Crosby will end up being the NHL's version of Bird vs. Magic, why not just enjoy it for what it is? Two tremondously talented, fabulously fun to watch hockey players are leading their teams on the quest for Lord Stanley's Cup. That alone should be reason enough to watch. Especially on Wednesday night when they face off in a series deciding Game Seven in Washington.
As for Mr. Albergotti, I will continue to read his work in the Journal. But until he proves otherwise, his hockey credibility is on ice.
So I was pleased When the Wall Street Journal recently expanded their sports coverage. They now offer a small daily dose of sports in addition to the irregular articles that usually appear in the weekend editions. It's only a page, but it's better than naught.
This expanded coverage has meant more hockey stories too. Not nearly enough to sate my appetite, but again better than before.
After reading one article last month on Why the Red Wings Are Such Sackless Wusses (actual title "Why The Red Wings Don't Fight") I was tempted to upbraid the author, Reed Albergotti, for a glaring misstatement:
Fights have always broken out during physical hockey games, but in the 1960s it became a strategy. The Boston Bruins and Philadelphia Flyers used intimidation to win Stanley Cups between 1969 and 1975. Without players who specialized in fisticuffs, a team's star players would be beaten to a pulp.
In the 1980s, the NHL doubled the number of divisional games teams played, creating more intense inter-divisional rivalries that sparked even more fighting and led to the advent of the bench-clearing brawl. The league averaged an all-time high of one fight per game in the mid-80s.
The advent of the bench-clearing brawl occurred in the 1980s? Not bloody likely. While there may have been more bench-clearers in the 80s than in other decades, they started long before that. You can find easily find videos online of a 1970 brawl between Montreal and Boston.
But don't just take my word for it. Take this:
The NHL instituted Rule 72, just months later, in the summer of 1987 - basically suspending any player for leaving the bench for 10 games, without pay. Coaches also faced suspension and fines as high as $10,000.
The rule was seen as a slow, but necessary, reaction by the NHL to what really started in the early 1970s shortly after expansion. When the league grew by six teams in 1967-68, then added two more in 1972-73 and another pair in 1974-75, the talent pool became diluted. Clubs lacking skill found that fighting and intimidation created another avenue to winning hockey games - highlighted by two Stanley Cup wins by the notorious Philadelphia Flyers.
Bench-clearing was in decline by the mid-1980s, and was nearly completely eradicated from the game after Rule 72 hit the books.
More evidence is supplied by this list of NHL Bench-Clearing Brawls by year. This particular one will bring back fond memories for North Star fans.
So no, the advent of the bench-clearing brawl did not happen in the 1980s. But being a generous sort I elected to give Mr. Albergotti a pass on his error at the time (plus I was a little concerned about the sort of associations a gentleman with his surname might have).
However, this claim by Albergotti in another hockey piece in Friday's WSJ on Alex Ovechkin called A Game-Changer From Moscow, forces me to break my silence (and possibly enter the witness protection program):
With the Ovechkin-Crosby matchup, the NHL finally got its long-desired showcase for talent. Hockey has had terrible luck in its playoff matchups. Its last set of superstars, Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux, never met in the postseason, even though their careers overlapped for 12 seasons. In the first game of the series, Messrs. Ovechkin and Crosby both scored in the first period. In the second game, they scored three goals each, the fourth time two opposing players have done that in the playoffs. And Wednesday night, the game went into overtime. Pittsburgh is 43-28, all time, against the Capitals in playoffs.
Hockey has had terrible luck its playoff matchups? Really? Funny 'cause I've been a hockey fan for a long, long time and I've never heard that before.
While it is true that some of the recent Finals matchups haven't been classics, it's because the teams involved aren't traditional hockey powers. When you have Carolina, Anaheim, and Tampa Bay playing for (and winning) the Cup, it does take a little luster off the most famous trophy in all of sport. But that's hardly what I would call "terrible luck."
Yes, it would have been interesting if Gretzky and Lemieux had met in the playoffs. But the comparison between them and Ovechkin and Crosby is quite inapt. While their careers did overlap, they weren't both at the top of their game at that same time as Ovechkin (23 years old) and Crosby (21) are now. Gretzky's best five years were probably 81-82 through 85-86 while Lemieux's were 87-88 through 92-93 (he was hurt most of the 90-91 season--except for the playoffs of course).
But worse than that is falling into the tired trap of comparing the NHL to the NBA. This isn't about loving hockey or hatin' on basketball. The games and leagues are just different and the constant comparisons are annoying.
The NBA is all about individual stars, matchups, and one on one battles. For the most part, the NHL is not. The reason that NHL playoffs series are great is not because of the star players involved, it's because of the teams. The rivalries, the geography, and the history is what usually sets them apart.
Yes, Gretzky was part of the great Edmonton teams of the 80s. But he wasn't the main reason the Oilers-Flames playoff series were so heated. Think about Detroit-Colorado during the Nineties or the Boston-Montreal playoff rivalry that has been rekindled during recent years. The great players on those teams are part of the story no doubt, but they are not the keys to those compelling playoff plots.
So instead of worrying about whether Ovechkin vs. Crosby will end up being the NHL's version of Bird vs. Magic, why not just enjoy it for what it is? Two tremondously talented, fabulously fun to watch hockey players are leading their teams on the quest for Lord Stanley's Cup. That alone should be reason enough to watch. Especially on Wednesday night when they face off in a series deciding Game Seven in Washington.
As for Mr. Albergotti, I will continue to read his work in the Journal. But until he proves otherwise, his hockey credibility is on ice.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Why So Serious?
It is never a good sign for the country to see liberals being happy. It means they are getting their way. Hoping, changing, redistributing, and fundamentally remaking America in the mold of their Utopian dreams.
In case any of you conservatives haven't had enough bad news of late, here are four slideshows featuring pictures of a jam-packed ballroom full of local media liberals smiling, tittering, drinking, toasting, guffawing, back-slapping, slurping, noshing, sucking, and jackknifing with laughter.
The occasion was Minn Roast at the posh downtown Minneapolis Graves 601 Hotel. A fundraiser for the local liberal Web site MinnPost, largely staffed with Star Tribune and lefty alternative media cast-offs. Given the financial state of their chosen industry and profession, you wouldn't expect these people to be ecstatic with the state of the world. But it is clear something has got them jazzed. Wonder what that is?
Yes, these people are allowed to have their fun. They won, they continue to win, and the voters as yet have shown no signs of rebelling at their schemes and agenda. Sounds like the perfect time for a Gatsby-like demonstration of care free opulence and gloating. However, the unsavory aspect of these pictures wasn't the media members in attendance. It was the other primary occupation group in attendance. Liberal politicians.
I don't have a guest list, but the pictures alone reveal the presence of RT Rybak, Chris Coleman, Mark Dayton, Walter Mondale, Margaret Anderson Keliher, Larry Pogemiller, John Marty, Susan Gaertner, and Tarryl Clark. (One shot of the lonely, huddled mass of Republicans, Peter Bell and Marty Seifert, was also included.) In fact, Coleman, Rybak, Keliher, and Clark are shown participating in the on-stage comedic skits.
That liberals in the media and liberals in politics would want to pal around together is not news. The cozy, bosom relationship that exists between liberal politicians and the press is also not surprising. (My favorite picture is of WCCO's Don Shelby and RT Rybak literally arm-in-arm while laughing and singing.)
The problem, fellow citizens, is that this wasn't just some after hours, purely social meeting of the media-politician industrial complex mutual appreciation society. No, this was a fundraiser for a news outlet. An outlet in the business of providing information about elected officials. And in attendance were dozens of these very elected officials, donating their time, money, and performance skills to help this institution stay in business. I wonder why that is?
Those not familiar with MinnPost might think their partisan agenda is clear, they are an explicit information arm of the Democrats, so this is no big deal. However, that is not what they claim to be. They fancy themselves to be a professional journalism site. A new media model for how the voting public can access news to help them make informed decisions. Their mission as articulated in the Minn Roast promotion includes this punch line: to keep serious journalism alive in Minnesota.
Serious journalism? So serious, that you have the Democrat mayor of Minneapolis, Democrat Mayor of St. Paul, Democrat Speaker of the MN House of Representatives, the Democrat Assistant Majority Leader of the Minnesota Senate, among others, performing like trained seals in order to keep them in business.
The conflict of interest for the media organization is obvious. "Serious journalists" should not be enlisting the subjects of their scrutiny in ensuring their financial well-being. And these long time veterans of the news business should know that by now.
But the more revealing aspect of the journalism being provided by MinnPost is the willingness of these Democrat politicians to participate in the first place. They apparently love the kind of journalism being peddled by MinnPost. They love the kind of scrutiny applied to their own actions (and the actions of their opponents) by MinnPost. They love it so much, they are willing to help raise money so that it can continue to cover them even more.
Maybe this is the new model for political journalism. At the height of the seemingly unclenchable monopolistic grip the Star Tribune had over Minnesota press coverage a few years ago, many conservative critics wished they'd just admit their biases and brand themselves with a party affiliation. MinnPost seems to have taken a half step toward this end by openly funding themselves through partisan activity. But they really need to go all the way and drop the pretense of being "serious journalism" and come up with a tag line closer to the truth. My suggestion: MinnPost, Democrats getting what they paid for.
In case any of you conservatives haven't had enough bad news of late, here are four slideshows featuring pictures of a jam-packed ballroom full of local media liberals smiling, tittering, drinking, toasting, guffawing, back-slapping, slurping, noshing, sucking, and jackknifing with laughter.
The occasion was Minn Roast at the posh downtown Minneapolis Graves 601 Hotel. A fundraiser for the local liberal Web site MinnPost, largely staffed with Star Tribune and lefty alternative media cast-offs. Given the financial state of their chosen industry and profession, you wouldn't expect these people to be ecstatic with the state of the world. But it is clear something has got them jazzed. Wonder what that is?
Yes, these people are allowed to have their fun. They won, they continue to win, and the voters as yet have shown no signs of rebelling at their schemes and agenda. Sounds like the perfect time for a Gatsby-like demonstration of care free opulence and gloating. However, the unsavory aspect of these pictures wasn't the media members in attendance. It was the other primary occupation group in attendance. Liberal politicians.
I don't have a guest list, but the pictures alone reveal the presence of RT Rybak, Chris Coleman, Mark Dayton, Walter Mondale, Margaret Anderson Keliher, Larry Pogemiller, John Marty, Susan Gaertner, and Tarryl Clark. (One shot of the lonely, huddled mass of Republicans, Peter Bell and Marty Seifert, was also included.) In fact, Coleman, Rybak, Keliher, and Clark are shown participating in the on-stage comedic skits.
That liberals in the media and liberals in politics would want to pal around together is not news. The cozy, bosom relationship that exists between liberal politicians and the press is also not surprising. (My favorite picture is of WCCO's Don Shelby and RT Rybak literally arm-in-arm while laughing and singing.)
The problem, fellow citizens, is that this wasn't just some after hours, purely social meeting of the media-politician industrial complex mutual appreciation society. No, this was a fundraiser for a news outlet. An outlet in the business of providing information about elected officials. And in attendance were dozens of these very elected officials, donating their time, money, and performance skills to help this institution stay in business. I wonder why that is?
Those not familiar with MinnPost might think their partisan agenda is clear, they are an explicit information arm of the Democrats, so this is no big deal. However, that is not what they claim to be. They fancy themselves to be a professional journalism site. A new media model for how the voting public can access news to help them make informed decisions. Their mission as articulated in the Minn Roast promotion includes this punch line: to keep serious journalism alive in Minnesota.
Serious journalism? So serious, that you have the Democrat mayor of Minneapolis, Democrat Mayor of St. Paul, Democrat Speaker of the MN House of Representatives, the Democrat Assistant Majority Leader of the Minnesota Senate, among others, performing like trained seals in order to keep them in business.
The conflict of interest for the media organization is obvious. "Serious journalists" should not be enlisting the subjects of their scrutiny in ensuring their financial well-being. And these long time veterans of the news business should know that by now.
But the more revealing aspect of the journalism being provided by MinnPost is the willingness of these Democrat politicians to participate in the first place. They apparently love the kind of journalism being peddled by MinnPost. They love the kind of scrutiny applied to their own actions (and the actions of their opponents) by MinnPost. They love it so much, they are willing to help raise money so that it can continue to cover them even more.
Maybe this is the new model for political journalism. At the height of the seemingly unclenchable monopolistic grip the Star Tribune had over Minnesota press coverage a few years ago, many conservative critics wished they'd just admit their biases and brand themselves with a party affiliation. MinnPost seems to have taken a half step toward this end by openly funding themselves through partisan activity. But they really need to go all the way and drop the pretense of being "serious journalism" and come up with a tag line closer to the truth. My suggestion: MinnPost, Democrats getting what they paid for.
Schools Out For The Summer
The last debate in this season' Argument of the Month Club takes place tomorrow night:
Catholic Education--Who's Converting Whom?
* Catholic School Identity? What makes a Catholic school Catholic?
* Relationship between the Catholic Church and Catholic Schools? To what degree does Church authority participate in a Catholic school's decision to hire faculty, invite speakers, or select curriculum? (How do we approach Notre Dame's decision to invite President Obama as commencement speaker?)
* Academic Freedom? Is there a conflict between a Catholic school's stance on major issues and what is allowed to be taught freely at a Catholic school?
* Laymen's Responsibilities? What is the responsibility of the lay toward Catholic schools?
* Trends?
These questions, and others pertaining to "Catholic School Identity," will be taken up and debated by our guest speakers: Deacon Nathan Allen and Dr. Stephen Heaney.
The event will take place in the basement of St. Augustine's Church in St. Paul. Twelve bones at the door gets you dinner and a chance to listen and participate in the debate. Here's the schedule:
6:00pm Social Hour and Appetizers
7:00pm Dinner
7:30pm Main Presentation
8:15pm Dessert
8:30pm Q&A
Catholic Education--Who's Converting Whom?
* Catholic School Identity? What makes a Catholic school Catholic?
* Relationship between the Catholic Church and Catholic Schools? To what degree does Church authority participate in a Catholic school's decision to hire faculty, invite speakers, or select curriculum? (How do we approach Notre Dame's decision to invite President Obama as commencement speaker?)
* Academic Freedom? Is there a conflict between a Catholic school's stance on major issues and what is allowed to be taught freely at a Catholic school?
* Laymen's Responsibilities? What is the responsibility of the lay toward Catholic schools?
* Trends?
These questions, and others pertaining to "Catholic School Identity," will be taken up and debated by our guest speakers: Deacon Nathan Allen and Dr. Stephen Heaney.
The event will take place in the basement of St. Augustine's Church in St. Paul. Twelve bones at the door gets you dinner and a chance to listen and participate in the debate. Here's the schedule:
6:00pm Social Hour and Appetizers
7:00pm Dinner
7:30pm Main Presentation
8:15pm Dessert
8:30pm Q&A
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Northern Alliance Radio Network
Join us beginning at 11AM today for another episode of the Northern Alliance Radio Network.
John Hinderaker and I will be LIVE in studio. A jam packed show planned. In addition to the normal vivisection of the issues of the day, we have a special guest in the noon hour. The dean of American political reporting, Michael Barone joins us. Of course, he's a regular contributor to Fox News and the author of The Almanac of American Politics and former writer for US News and World Report. He's just moved to a columnist/blogging position at the Washington Examiner. We'll hear about his new gig and get his commentary on the top political and electorial stories of the day.
Plus Loon of the Week, This Week in Gate Keeping, and much, much more.
It all starts at 11AM Central, locally on AM1280 the Patriot. Streaming LIVE worldwide at the web site. You can join the conversation at 651-289-4488.
Following us at 1 PM, Mitch Berg and Capt. Ed Morrissey, then at 3PM it's King Banaian and the Final Word. Also, don't forget David Strom preceding us all at 9 AM.
Don't you dare miss it!
John Hinderaker and I will be LIVE in studio. A jam packed show planned. In addition to the normal vivisection of the issues of the day, we have a special guest in the noon hour. The dean of American political reporting, Michael Barone joins us. Of course, he's a regular contributor to Fox News and the author of The Almanac of American Politics and former writer for US News and World Report. He's just moved to a columnist/blogging position at the Washington Examiner. We'll hear about his new gig and get his commentary on the top political and electorial stories of the day.
Plus Loon of the Week, This Week in Gate Keeping, and much, much more.
It all starts at 11AM Central, locally on AM1280 the Patriot. Streaming LIVE worldwide at the web site. You can join the conversation at 651-289-4488.
Following us at 1 PM, Mitch Berg and Capt. Ed Morrissey, then at 3PM it's King Banaian and the Final Word. Also, don't forget David Strom preceding us all at 9 AM.
Don't you dare miss it!
Friday, May 08, 2009
Separated At Birth?
A couple of SAB submittals from readers for your discernment.
First up, Mark leads off with some local flava:
From St. Cloud DFL State Senator who thinks voters won't remember the past Tarryl L. Clark and...
...from The Dark Crystal creatures who live without knowledge of the future Gelflings?
Next up is Henry:
Former Twin known for turning two Roy Smalley and...
....movie star known for her hair goo Cameron Diaz?
I wonder what Roy uses on his hair...
First up, Mark leads off with some local flava:
From St. Cloud DFL State Senator who thinks voters won't remember the past Tarryl L. Clark and...
...from The Dark Crystal creatures who live without knowledge of the future Gelflings?
Next up is Henry:
Former Twin known for turning two Roy Smalley and...
....movie star known for her hair goo Cameron Diaz?
I wonder what Roy uses on his hair...
Beer Of The Week (Vol VII)
[ Lucky Volume Seven in the recently expanded beer tasting series. Once again, today's post is made possible by the fine folks at Glen Lake Wine and Spirits. That establishment has generously agreed to provide beer for weekly reviews and every brew featured here is available at Glen Lake Wine and Spirits. These reviews will be an expansion of the beer rating that I've been doing for years and will be more in-depth look at particular beers using the same rating criteria. And in addition to the just the beer itself, I'll be examining the whole aesthetic package; the bottle, the label, the name. ]
Ever since I was old enough to drink (and actually some years before), I've been quite familiar with the Leinenkugels family of beers. It used to be just plain old Leinie's. Then Leinie's Light (which is better than most calorie conscious brews), Leinie's Red, Leinie's Honey Weiss, Leinie's Creamy Dark, etc. As the years have gone on, the Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin brewery has been adding more and more selections to their offering. And I've been favorably impressed with most of their recent additions, especially the Sunset Wheat, 1888 Bock, Summer Shandy, and Fireside Nut Brown beers.
So my hopes were high when I tasted their latest product, Leinenkugel's Classic Amber Lager. Leinie's Red is a decent beer and I expected that Classic Amber would be a premium upgrade from that. Reality didn't pan out quite that way.
The bottle is brown with the Leinie name etched below the neck. The label features images of hops and malt and a beautiful background scene with amber rays of sunshine reflecting off placid water as a canoe plows by. It definitely evokes stirrings of the Northwoods, a theme long embraced by Leinie's.
The beer itself however doesn't hold up as well.
Beer Style: Lager
Alcohol by Volume: 4.9%
COLOR (0-2): clear, light reddish-orange 1
AROMA (0-2): Faint, hard to pick up much 1
HEAD (0-2): Small bubbles, nice color 2
TASTE (0-5): Malty, smooth, and drinkable. 3
AFTERTASTE (0-2): Weak follow through 1
OVERALL (0-6): A very average beer. Not among the best that Leinenkugel has to offer. 3
TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 11
The complete Fraters Libertas Beer Ratings were updated last week. A total of 367 beers so far. More to come next week.
Ever since I was old enough to drink (and actually some years before), I've been quite familiar with the Leinenkugels family of beers. It used to be just plain old Leinie's. Then Leinie's Light (which is better than most calorie conscious brews), Leinie's Red, Leinie's Honey Weiss, Leinie's Creamy Dark, etc. As the years have gone on, the Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin brewery has been adding more and more selections to their offering. And I've been favorably impressed with most of their recent additions, especially the Sunset Wheat, 1888 Bock, Summer Shandy, and Fireside Nut Brown beers.
So my hopes were high when I tasted their latest product, Leinenkugel's Classic Amber Lager. Leinie's Red is a decent beer and I expected that Classic Amber would be a premium upgrade from that. Reality didn't pan out quite that way.
The bottle is brown with the Leinie name etched below the neck. The label features images of hops and malt and a beautiful background scene with amber rays of sunshine reflecting off placid water as a canoe plows by. It definitely evokes stirrings of the Northwoods, a theme long embraced by Leinie's.
The beer itself however doesn't hold up as well.
Beer Style: Lager
Alcohol by Volume: 4.9%
COLOR (0-2): clear, light reddish-orange 1
AROMA (0-2): Faint, hard to pick up much 1
HEAD (0-2): Small bubbles, nice color 2
TASTE (0-5): Malty, smooth, and drinkable. 3
AFTERTASTE (0-2): Weak follow through 1
OVERALL (0-6): A very average beer. Not among the best that Leinenkugel has to offer. 3
TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 11
The complete Fraters Libertas Beer Ratings were updated last week. A total of 367 beers so far. More to come next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)