Message to Penguins fans -- DON'T PANIC!

I've heard and read a lot about the Pens' "struggles" to gain some traction in this still very-young season. Time to address some issues on this that have been bugging me.

To all "let's trade Fleury for a bag of magic beans" fans -- He's 23. The youngest "sorta-starting" goalie in the league. The fact the Pens believe they can play with less intensity in front of him does not help. And the Pens' issues aren't just about goaltending, as easy as it is for some people to believe otherwise.

To the "Fire Therrien" fans -- While Therrien's penchant for changing lines can be annoying; I believe he's looking to build chemistry 2-3 months down the road as opposed to just the next 2-3 games. Changing coaches when the team is only 7-8-1 and one point from a playoff spot. The schedule, especially the first half-dozen games, wasn't exactly conducive for building consistency either.

In short, a 7-8-1 start isn't anything to cry about. Let's give this thing 30 games before we start to shout for Micheal Therrien's head or call Marc-Andre Fleury the bust-of-the-century. Only Ottawa, Carolina and Montreal really stand out so far in the East, and the Habs started well last year before falling back and missing the playoffs. Yes, the defense and goaltending have major issues and the scoring needs to come from others besides Crosby, Malkin, Sykora and Malone, but the season is a marathon, not a sprint. In the end, the adversity will probably benefit the young players that are the building blocks of the team as the years go by.

Don't panic. No matter how fun we think it is.

I'm back...

Well that was a longer break than I expected.

I've been rather busy with assisting my wife with her endeavors along with editing a novel a couple of friends of mine have been working on.

Plus we got a cat. Our first pet. He rocks.

In upcoming posts, I want to discuss sports, comics, TV and politics, including the presidential campaign that has seemingly gone on forever already.

"Heroes" withdrawal...and other shows I miss...

I've promised that I would try to add some pop culture posts in the past. (I've also promised to post more....oh freakin' well.)

With the arrival of the dog days of summer, one starts to miss new episodes of their favorite tv shows. One of my new favorites from last year is "Heroes." I was deathly afraid when I watched the premiere that this would be some kind of "Misfits of Science" (Courtney Cox was in that, I believe) derivative. And anyone who actually watched and remembers "Misfits of Science" can probably imagine how bad that could be.

Fortunately, "Heroes" was intelligently written from the start and remained strong throughout. While the 1st season finale fell a little flat, the acting of Masi Oka, Jack Coleman, Nathan Pasdar (I'll give him a pass, even though he's married to Natalie Maines) and Zachary Quinto were top-notch.

More importantly, the show treated "comic-book" concepts like superpowers with a respect typically unseen with new properties of this genre and the characters were allowed to grow and change in a mature, logical manner.

The first season DVD will most likely be a Christmas gift, so, outside of an occasional foray into NBC's "Heroes" website to check out the original graphic novels, my "Heroes" fix will have to wait until the season premiere.

As for other shows I've been watching:

"The Office" - The worst thing about this show was that I had to change the name of a concept I came up with for some friends a couple years back. Always funny, the writers have found a happy medium between zany and downright uncomfortable situations. Rainn Wilson is consistently brilliant.

"My Name is Earl" - Somewhat overshadowed by "The Office", the most amazing thing about this show is Jason Lee's complete departure from all of his previous roles. Occasional recurring roles by Giovanni Ribisi and Beau Bridges are the icing on the cake.

"Scrubs" - I came late to this show, which at times can be quite schmaltzy. But the schmaltz is more than mitigated by the presence of John C. McGinley as the acerbic Dr. Perry Cox. I always think of Dr. Cox when I come across irrational bleeding hearts or crappy music on the radio.

"Family Guy" - So loaded with references, you can watch each episode multiple times. While the left-wing bias is a little overbearing at times, the Bill Clinton episode makes up for it.

"No Reservations" - The one show on this list that some folks probably haven't heard of, it's also one of the most interesting and varied. Anthony Bourdain's meat-loving, damn it all to hell attitude is great. His love for experiencing the people, the actual culture of a place is infectious. The producers also do an excellent job of picking locations that are both unfamiliar and interesting.

That's it for now, but I'll revisit this issue with the one new show I've discovered this summer: Flight of the Conchords. Until next time.

War about the War: Analysis

As anyone who has read my earlier posts can probably guess, I subscribe to Perception One as described by Mr. Meyer. Bin Laden and others have stated time and again the intended objective is to establish a Islamic fundamentalist caliphate in the Middle East, centered on Iraq with Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Palestine (including Israel), Lebanon, Jordan and probably northern Africa all included.

From there, this caliphate would seek to destroy western civilization, which for all intents and purposes includes the United States, Europe (basically all of it), Australia, India and southeast Asia. (What they'd do in regards to China and Japan would be interesting to speculate about, but only in a work of fiction.) These civilizations would be replaced with states loyal and subservient to this caliphate. So there is a lot at stake here, assuming Al-Qaeda ever gets the resources to pull any of this off. Ostensibly, keeping Al-Qaeda from acquiring these resources (land, oil, weaponry, etc.) is what the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are all about at present.

The second point the author makes is that President Bush, while dogged in his determination to stop Al-Qaeda, has assumed a middle, and rather muddled, path in prosecuting both wars. While I disagree with parts of Bush's overall approach; it can't be denied that using excessive force that inadvertently kills innocents not only riles up more support for the bad guys, but also hurts support among those who subscribe to Perception 2. For most Americans, a short, brutal war would probably be preferable to a long, drawn-out war of a thousand cuts.

That being said, it is unfortunately true that a second 9/11 style attack, particularly in Europe, will most likely have to succeed to wake up most of the European elite to the true threat these terrorists present. Also unfortunate, is that depending on the nation attacked, especially if it is the United Kingdom, support from other European countries to assist us in the Iraq and Afghani theaters may be lukewarm at best, as these countries would most likely want to beef up anti-terrorism strategies and tactics at home first.

Of course, if this attack occurs in the United States, we will surely wake up from our media-saturated and economically-successful slumber. And depending on where the attack is, as well as the number of casualties, world support for aggressively counter-attacking regimes supporting Al-Qaeda, such as Iran, Syria and the Northwest Frontier province of Pakistan, could grow even beyond post-9/11 levels.

This has been one of the key elements that's been missing from our strategy since invading Iraq. While I do not believe invading Iran or Syria is either feasible, nor necessary at this point, aggressive economic sanctions on both regimes would damage their ability to support their proxy wars in Iraq, Lebanon and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. I would go so far as to blockade the Persian Gulf, prohibiting all shipping to and from Iran. At present, Iran is unable to supply enough gasoline for its own people, due to a lack of refining capacity. Much of their surplus oil leaves the country, is refined, and then traded back to Iran. Eliminating, or at least retarding this trade, could cripple the Iranian economy, pushing the populace's patience with the clerical regime, already short, over the edge. In the case of Iran, regime change could come from within, and because the populace is much more homogeneous than Iraq, where a minority ethnic group dominated the majority under the old regime, stability could be achieved in a much less painful fashion.

As for Syria, the elimination of Assad's most important ally would most likely be enough to make the Assad regime play nice and perhaps even issue a Gaddafi-style mea culpa.

The final paragraph of Meyer's article is articulate reasoning about how American society seems
hard-coded to be pushed to the edge before finally dealing with serious problems. As I think about it, this isn't confined to foreign threats as in the World Wars or even the Cold War. Domestically, problems ranging from the Civil War to race relations have to boil over before we, as a nation, confront and deal with them. Sadly this seems to be true for our over-extended positions on Medicare and Social Security as well. But that...is for a future post.

A near-perfect summary of our (America's) internal conflict over the War on Terror

The following is a wonderful reprint. Please read.

Link

The War About the War

Herbert Meyer Tue Jul 10, 3:30 PM ET

The 9-11 attacks did more than start a war; they started a war about the war. No sooner had the World Trade towers collapsed and the Pentagon burst into flames than two perceptions of the threat began competing for the public's support: (editorial continues below)

ADVERTISEMENT

Perception One: We're at War

For the third time in history Islam - or, more precisely, its most radical element - has launched a war whose objective is the destruction of Western civilization. Our survival is at stake, and despite its imperfections we believe that Western civilization is worth defending to the death. Moreover, in the modern world - where a small number of people can so easily kill a large number of people - we cannot just play defense; sooner or later that strategy would bring another 9-11. This conflict really is a clash of civilizations whose root cause is Islam's incompatibility with the modern world. So we must fight with everything we've got against the terrorist groups and against those governments on whose support they rely. If the Cold War was "World War III," this is World War IV. We must win it, at whatever cost.

Perception Two: We're Reaping What We've Sowed

There are quite a few people in the world who just don't like the United States and some of our allies because of how we live and, more precisely, because of the policies we pursue in the Mideast and elsewhere in the world. Alas, a small percentage of these people express their opposition through acts of violence. While we sometimes share their opinion of our values and our policies, we cannot condone their methods. Our objective must be to bring the level of political violence down to an acceptable level. The only way to accomplish this will be to simultaneously adjust our values and our policies while protecting ourselves from these intermittent acts of violence; in doing so we must be careful never to allow the need for security to override our civil liberties.

There is no middle ground between these two perceptions. Of course, you can change a word here and there, or modify a phrase, but the result will be the same. Either we're at war, or we've entered a period of history in which the level of violence has risen to an unacceptable level. If we're at war, we're in a military conflict that will end with either our victory or our defeat. If we're in an era of unacceptable violence stemming from our values and our policies, we are faced with a difficult but manageable political problem.

Splitting the Difference

Since the 9-11 attacks, President Bush has been trying to split the difference. It's obvious that he, personally, subscribes to Perception One. Just read his formal speeches about the conflict, such as those he's given to Congress and at venues such as West Point. They are superb and often brilliant analyses of what he calls the War on Terror. Yet he hasn't done things that a president who truly believes that we're at war should have done. For instance, in the aftermath of 9-11 he didn't ask Congress for a declaration of war, didn't bring back the draft, and didn't put the US economy on a wartime footing. A president at war would have taken out Iran's government after overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan -- and then sent 500,000 troops into Iraq, rather than just enough troops to remove Saddam Hussein but not enough to stabilize that country. And a president at war would have long since disposed of Syria's murderous regime and helped the Israelis wipe out Hezbollah.

Study history, and you quickly learn that oftentimes events and the responses they generate look different a hundred years after they happen than they look at the time. It may be that history will judge that President Bush performed heroically, doing the very best that anyone could do given the two incompatible perceptions about the conflict that have divided public opinion and raised the level of partisanship in Washington to such a poisonous level. Or, it may be that history will judge the President to have been a failure because he responded to 9-11 as a politician rather than as a leader.

Either way, it is the ongoing war about the war that accounts for where we are today, nearly six years after the 9-11 attacks: We haven't lost, but we aren't winning; fewer of us have been killed by terrorists than we had feared would be killed, but we aren't safe.

While experts disagree about how "the war" is going, there isn't much disagreement over how the war about the war is going: those who subscribe to Perception Two are pulling ahead.

Here in the US, virtually every poll shows that a majority of Americans want us "out of Iraq" sooner rather than later, and regardless of what's actually happening on the ground in that country. Support for taking on Iran - that is, for separating the Mullahs from the nukes through either a military strike or by helping Iranians to overthrow them from within - is too low even to measure. There isn't one candidate for president in either party who's campaigning on a theme of "let's fight harder and win this thing whatever it takes." Indeed, the most hawkish position is merely to stay the course a while longer to give the current "surge" in Iraq a fair chance. Moreover, just chat with friends and neighbors - at barbeques, at the barbershop, over a cup of coffee - and you'll be hard-pressed to find a solid minority, let alone a majority, in favor of fighting-to-win.

However it's phrased, just about everyone is looking for a way out short of victory.

Overseas, public opinion is moving in the same direction. For example, in Great Britain Tony Blair has stepped aside for Gordon Brown, who in the midst of the recent terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow has ordered his government to ban the phrase "war on terror" and to avoid publicly linking the recent, mercifully failed attacks in London and Glasgow to any aspect of Islam. The current leaders of Germany and France are less anti-American than their predecessors, but no more willing to help us fight. Down under in Australia John Howard - blessed be his name - is holding firm, but for a combination of reasons may be approaching the end of his long tenure; none of his likely replacements are nearly so robust. And the Israelis - who are facing the triple-threat of Hamas, Hezbollah, and before too long a nuclear-armed Iran - are going through one of their periodic bouts of political paralysis.

A Second Attack

It's possible that something horrific will happen in the immediate future to shift public support here in the US, and throughout the West, from the second perception to the first. When asked by a young reporter what he thought would have the greatest impact on his government's fate, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan responded cheerfully: "Events, dear boy, events." One more 9-11-type attack - biological, chemical, or nuclear - that takes out Houston, Berlin, Vancouver or Paris, and the leader of that country will be overwhelmed by the furious public's demands to "turn the creeps who did this, and the countries that helped them, into molten glass and don't let's worry about collateral damage." (This will sound even better in French or German.) Should the next big attack come here in the US, some among us will blame the President but most won't. The public mood will be not merely ferocious, but ugly; you won't want to walk down the street wearing an "I gave to the ACLU" pin in your lapel.

Absent such an event in the near future, it's likely that over the next few years the war will settle into a phase that proponents of Perception Two will approve. Simply put, we will shift from offense to defense. The Department of Homeland Security will become our government's lead agency, and the Pentagon's role will be diminished. (Nothing will change at the State Department - but then, nothing ever does.) Most people in the US, and elsewhere in the West, will be relieved that "the war" is finally over.

To preserve the peace we will have to be more than willing to make the occasional accommodation to Moslems. If they ask us to put more pressure on the Israelis - well, we can easily do that. If Moslem checkout clerks at our supermarkets don't want to touch pork - by all means let's have separate checkout counters for customers who've bought those products. And now that we think about it, "Happy Winter" will be as good a greeting, if not a better one, than "Merry Christmas." Won't it?

Of course, there will be the occasional terrorist attack. Some, like the recent ones in London and Glasgow, will fail. Others will succeed, but guided by the mainstream media we will view them with the same detachment as we would view a meteor shower that brought flaming rocks crashing randomly into the Earth. Most will land harmlessly in fields, some will land on houses and kill those few residents unlucky enough to be home at the time. Once in a while, one will crash into a crowded shopping mall or, sadly, into a school packed with children. These things happen - alas - and while it's riveting to watch the latest disaster unfold on television there really isn't much one can do about it. Life goes on.

In the long run, history always sorts things out.

If it turns out that Perception Two of the threat is valid, then over time we will become accustomed to the level of casualties caused by the terrorists. After all, more than 40,000 Americans are killed each year in traffic accidents and we don't make a big political issue out of that, do we? Our attitude toward death-by-terrorist-attack will be the same as our attitude toward deaths on the highway: a tragedy for the victim and members of the family, but nothing really to fuss over. And if Perception Two is valid, it's even possible that the terrorist threat eventually will ease. Can you even remember the last time anyone got bombed by the IRA?

But if those of us who subscribe to Perception One are correct, then it's only a matter of time before something ghastly happens that will swing public opinion throughout the West our way - and hard. Whether this will happen in two years, or five, or in 15 years, is impossible to predict. All we can know for certain is that if Western civilization really is under attack from Islam, or from elements within Islam, then they will not give up or be appeased. At some point they're going to go for the knockout punch.

Fighting, Finally, to Win

The pessimists among us will argue that by this time we'll be too far gone to save; that years of merely playing defense and of making concessions to the sensitivities of our enemy will have eroded our military power, and sapped our will, to the point where de facto surrender will be the only option.

We optimists see things differently: For better or worse, it's part of the American character to wait until the last possible moment - even to wait a bit beyond the last possible moment - before kicking into high gear and getting the job done. It's in our genes; just think of how many times you've ground enamel off your teeth watching your own kid waste an entire weekend, only to start writing a book report at 10:30 Sunday night that, when you find it on the breakfast table Monday morning is by some miracle a minor masterpiece.

However horrific it may be, the knockout punch won't knock us out. Instead, it will shift us from playing defense back to offense - and this time we won't hold back. The president will ask Congress for a declaration of war and he, or she, will get it. We'll bring back the draft, send our troops into battle without one hand tied behind their backs by lawyers, and we won't waste time and energy pussyfooting with the United Nations. And if we've closed GITMO by this time - we'll reopen it and even double its size because we're going to pack it. All of this will take longer to organize, and cost more, than if we'd done it right in the aftermath of 9-11. That's unfortunate, but that's the way we Americans tend to do things. And when we do finally start fighting for real -- we'll win.

I'm back...

Well it has been awhile....congrats to the Ducks on their first Stanley Cup.

A lot has happened over the six plus weeks since I last posted. New house. A long overseas trip. But I hope to begin blogging regularly going forward. I plan on trying some new ideas to increase traffic to the site. The following posts will hopefully "catch up" with my thoughts on recent news of high, and not-so-high, importance.

Stanley Cup Finals

Ducks vs. Senators - The Ducks have gotten great goaltending, great defense and timely goals. The Senators have basically crushed all three of their opponents. As much as I would like to see Teemu Selanne get a cup, I really believe that the Senators will win this series in six games because of the strong play of all four lines and all three d-pairings. The Cup's going back to Canada.

An Apology, Excuses and Cup Picks

For starters, a big "sorry" for not posting recently. The wife and I are buying a house at the end of month, so between that, graduations, and overall busy-ness; I haven't been posting.

As for my first round predictions: 5-3 in the first round isn't horrible, but it isn't very good either. The Pens, Thrashers and Flames all disappointed me, but to be fair, I did have all three series going 6 or 7 games.

As far as the second round, on my honor, I went 3-1 with the only series I didn't correctly pick being the Red Wings-Sharks. Anaheim-San Jose would've been nice for California hockey fans and would probably goose interest on the West Coast, but the TV people are probably relieved to have the Wings in the Conference Final.

Buffalo vs. Ottawa - The Sabres haven't exactly impressed up to this point, but they're built to beat a team like the Sens thanks to their superior speed and goal-scoring depth. That being said, this will be an awesome series that should go the distance. Sabres 4-3

Detroit vs. Anaheim - Both are experienced, but the Ducks are hungrier. The holy defensive trinity of Pronger-Niedermeyer-Giguere should be enough to stop the veteran-laden (some would say "old") Red Wings. Ducks 4-2

The Stanley Cup Final

Buffalo vs. Anaheim - The analytical side says Anaheim, but Buffalo has felt like a team of destiny all year. In a classic - Sabres 4-3

What we should learn from the VA Tech massacre

I'd much rather be blogging about taxes right now...but something slightly more important came up.

I don't know anyone who attends or attended Virginia Tech. The closest I can come is that my sister knows someone who attends their graduate school (she's ok, btw.)

I do know that as soon as the enormity of the situation was reported, the gun control advocates and "world opinion" would immediately criticize our "gun culture." This disgusts me for two reasons:

1. Many of the victims had not even been moved from the scene, much less identified yet. Consequently many families were not notified, when the politicizing of this extremely tragic event began. This shows sickening insensitivity to all those victimized by this madman.

2. Focusing on the weapon overshadows the evil perpetrated by this obscene individual. It creates a feeling that the guns themselves committed the acts and that Cho, who wasn't identified until a full day after the attacks, was being somehow led by them.

I have read several bloggers and media types condemn the politicizing of the tragedy, which shows progress and that knee jerk reactions that followed similar incidents in recent years in Australia and Scotland will not rule the day.

However, now that Cho's package has been made partially public by NBC News, and we can see how evil and despicable this man was, I would like to illustrate how Cho could've perpetrated these crimes without the use of handguns.

A. Knife or some other type of blade - Cho would not realistically accomplished much by using a knife, even a machete. He could've been tackled or brought down by several male students. The injuries caused would be brutal and there would be deaths, but I would guess they would number no more than 12, with many more severely injured. If he was disarmed, suicide would not have been an option for him.

B. Car - Cho could've taken his car, assuming that he has access to one, and simply attempted to run down as many students as possible, in a manner similar to the incident at the University of North Carolina. (Whatever happened with that, Mainstream Media?) Granted the death toll probably would not have been so great (let's say he hits between classes and kills 15 people, injuring another 12 or so) and it would've been harder to commit suicide when the cops closed in, but he could've rammed the vehicle into a building or committed "suicide-by-cop."

B. Poison - I thank my wife for this suggestion, as she worked in her campus cafeteria. If Cho wanted to kill indiscriminately, he could've gotten a work study job at the cafe, smuggled in Rat Poison or who knows what (I'm not up on my poisons, sorry.), and sickened or killed a lot of people. VA Tech has approximately 9,000 people on campus. He contaminates one item of one meal with the right poison and the death toll might just exceed 32.

C. Bomb - Let's say that instead of going to the dorm to murder his first victim, Cho decides to, at least, attempt to blow up the entire dorm. This would require a greater degree of planning and sophistication on his part (and rudimentary Internet search engine knowledge), but if he succeeds the death toll would easily be in the hundreds if he would've struck at the same time of day. (As an aside, Spain and the UK haven't banned common household products used in bomb-production yet, have they?)

So what's the point of this brief analysis? 32 innocent people are still dead and others have received devastating injuries. Well, as I suspected from the beginning, if Cho had not had access to handguns, I believe the general consensus in coming days will be that he would've used other means to try to murder as many people as possible.

Cho was evil and the mainstream media, politicians (unfortunately of both stripes) and liberals in general do not want to acknowledge that evil exists in the here and now. Even the university that has been victimized did not take aggressive steps to deal with him before he struck. Whether it takes the form of lone gunmen or Islamofascists, evil must be acknowledged and confronted. If this important lesson is learned and applied, we will be a much safer society for it.

NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs - Predictions

With the greatest post-season in sports ready to get underway, and my beloved Pittsburgh Penguins a part of it for the first time in six years, I want to provide my predictions on not just the first round like the professional hockey writers, but the playoffs in their entirety. I do this for two reasons:

1. I have no fear. And very little shame.

2. It's fun.

I'll go round-by-round, starting with the West. Team with home-ice listed first. I'll save the Pens-Sens prediction for the end of the first round.

Round One - Western Conference

Detroit vs. Calgary - A tough series because the Wings have tended to choke in the first round. Calgary has chemistry issues, but if Kiprusoff gets hot the beat-up Wings could be upset.
Flames 4-3

Anaheim vs. Minnesota - The Wild's Niklas Backstrom has been a surprise in goal, but he lacks playoff experience, which the Ducks have in abundance. Pronger and Niedermeyer should be able to limit Marian Gaborik. Still expect a close, tight-checking series. Ducks 4-3

Vancouver vs. Dallas - Roberto Luongo's first playoff series couldn't be set up any better. The Stars have very little in the way of offense. Couple this with Marty Turco's routine playoff inconsistency and this becomes the easiest pick in the West. Canucks 4-2

Nashville vs. San Jose - I was set to pick the Preds in 7 until I found out about Steve Sullivan's injury. Even with this hanging over the team, Vokoun in net should allow the Preds to keep it close, but the Sharks just simply have more firepower. Sharks 4-3

Round One - Eastern Conference

Buffalo vs. New York Islanders - With DiPietro, the Isles were going to have trouble winning three games. Without him, I doubt they'll win two. Sabres 4-1

New Jersey vs. Tampa Bay - Tampa's goaltending is not the best, and it's going up against the best goaltender of all time. As long as the Devils can score three goals a game, they should win.
Devils 4-2

Atlanta vs. New York Rangers - The Rangers have been the chic pick by most writers, but Kari Lehtonen is the equal of Lundquist and I like their collection of forwards and d-men better. Jagr and Shanahan's experience will keep this tight. Thrashers 4-3

Ottawa vs. Pittsburgh - Pens-Sens should be one of the best series. Fleury is clearly a superior netminder to Ray Emery and that will, eventually, make all the difference. Penguins 4-3

Round Two - Western Conference

Anaheim vs. Calgary - Both of these teams will be coming off difficult, draining first round matchups. In the end though, Anaheim is clearly the superior team, due more to the presence of Chris Pronger and Scott Niedermeyer on the blue line than anything else. The Kipper will keep this close though. Ducks 4-3

Vancouver vs. San Jose - Luongo got a soft warmup against Dallas, but it won't carry over against the Sharks. Joe Thornton, Jonathan Cheechoo and Patrick Marleau have too much firepower and I don't see the Sedin twins and a disappointing Markus Naslund being able to match. Sharks 4-2

Round Two - Eastern Conference

Buffalo vs. Pittsburgh - This is a great matchup for the league and the TV networks. Unfortunately, the Penguins will be coming off a grueling seven-game victory over the tough Senators, while the Sabres will beat the weakest team in the field handily. This will give the Sabres an edge that they will not relinquish. Sabres 4-2

New Jersey vs. Atlanta -This is NOT a great matchup for the league and the TV networks, who would have preferred a Devils-Rangers tilt. Regardless, the balanced Thrashers will be able to keep up with the Devils, but Brodeur will be the difference as he stymies Marian Hossa, Ilya Kovalchuk and Keith Tkachuk. Devils 4-2


Western Conference Championship


Anaheim vs. San Jose - An exciting, tough series to watch and follow. I look for the Ducks to be somewhat worn out due to their tough earlier-round series. That makes the difference in series as Thornton, Marleau and Cheechoo have enough to overcome Pronger and Niedermeyer.

Sharks 4-3

Eastern Conference Championship

Buffalo vs. New Jersey - Brodeur probably will be touted for the Conn Smythe at the start of this series, but in the end, the Sabres momentum and depth will win out.

Sabres - 4-2

Stanley Cup Championship

Buffalo vs. San Jose - Look for a hard-fought series by two teams looking for their first Cup. Expect some high-scoring exciting games throughout this series, which will be won by the Buffalo Sabres four games to three.

After Round One, I'll post my record - likely to be poor - and my predictions on the subsequent round right up to the Cup Final. To all my fellow hockey fans and especially the Pittsburgh Penguins fans: Enjoy!

The Great Global Warming Swindle

I just finished watching the BBC production "The Great Global Warming Swindle." This is such an important documentary in that it attacks the "Global Warming consensus" from a scientific, political, economic and even a humanitarian point of view. The fact that it was aired on the BBC is a significant step in showing that much of what the environmental establishment has to say is not only untrue, but also could be debilitating to many other causes (Third World economic development) that many of these folks claim to support.

The videos on the left link to the complete documentary, which runs 1 hour and 15 minutes. This link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk&mode=related&search=
will take you to a YouTube page that breaks it into 8 parts.

What would Hugo do?

...About Global Warming that is? I felt, with Al Gore's testimonies before the House and Senate earlier this week, that this would be a good time to write about Global Warming or Climate Change.

As anyone who has read my earlier posts can surely guess, I'm not a big believer in human-induced global warming or climate change. My first real epiphany on man's effect on the environment occurred in an Earth Science class when I was in 8th Grade. The teacher talked about how the 1883 Krakatoa eruption had more force than all the world's atomic weapons combined, at least theoretically. This really convinced me about how little man can affect nature, at least en masse, and as global warming became a hot (sorry) topic in the 1990s, was the starting point of much of my thinking and opinion-forming regarding the environment.

Now I'm not saying that I'm for rampant pollution and that companies, and individuals, should not be held accountable for oil spills, and other instances of neglect or ignorance, but I do believe that in the United States and western Europe, companies and individuals have done a commendable job improving their national environments. Locally, Pittsburgh stands a great testimony to what can be done to improve the local environment.

However, questions have to be asked. How much environmental oversight by governments, on all levels, is too much? Is it necessary to curb economic output to meet the goals of Al Gore and other high profile environmentalists? Should China, India and other developing countries be held accountable even as substantial numbers of their people struggle to simply survive?

Much of the "solution" put forth by environmentalists to curb global warming involves the reduction of fossil fuel use. This brings up the title to this post: What would Hugo, meaning Hugo Chavez, do? This is very pertinent, as most environmentalists are anti-globalization and, generally, align themselves with left-of-center groups as well as the radical Far Left. Chavez, being the poster-boy for socialism and the Far Left at the moment, has a vested interest in _increasing_ fossil fuel use as that is Venezuela's most valuable export.

So what would Hugo do to curb global warming? Does he even think it is a problem? Or does he simply believe it is the result of evil capitalist America and Europe running their cars and air conditioners too much?

A quick Google search found an answer courtesy of Nikolas Kozloff of Venezuelanalysis.com:

"North Americans, he (Chavez) charged, had pursued an "egotistical" model of development. Chavez denounced the consumerist lifestyle in the United States, predicated on having more than one car per family.

On other occasions, Chavez has argued that powerful nations are responsible for causing global warming. What is more, he has publicly regretted pollution resulting from traditional sources of energy. He has called on developed nations to look more favorably on alternative energy such as gas, hydro and solar power. To its credit, Venezuela has ratified the Kyoto Protocol reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

Kozloff continues by writing about a 2005 address made by Chavez at the United Nations:

"The Venezuelan president expressed concern about 'an unstoppable increase of energy' and added that 'more carbon dioxide will inevitably be increased, thus warming our planet even more.'

It's rather ironic that Chavez, as the leader of one of the world's leading oil producing nations, would emphasize global warming at the United Nations. Nevertheless, recent moves by the government suggest that Chavez is willing to undertake some modest changes in energy policy.

While it's certainly environmentally vital for Venezuela to move off lead based gasoline and adopt alternative technologies, Chavez also has public relations considerations. The Venezuelan President wants to paint himself as an underdog on the world stage, struggling against U.S. imperialism and the voracious consumerist appetites of North Americans. By moving towards ethanol, Chavez may deflect criticism that he is hypocritical."

So Chavez basically wants to have his cake (deride America and capitalism, but sell us plenty of oil to keep his government afloat) and eat it too (make modest changes domestically to save face with the Far Left throughout the world.) Nice. And typical of a dictator whose Marxist tendencies produce a harsher grip on his people with each passing day.

Maybe he should follow up by quoting former President Clinton: "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is?"

No marching/happy feet/lame-penguin-movie joke for the Pittsburgh Penguins

For those of you living in western Pennsylvania and not under a rock this week, you know that the Pittsburgh Penguins recently consummated a new arena deal with our oh-so-enlightened Governor and local leaders that will build a new multi-purpose facility for the city, region and my favorite hockey team.

While in Luke's perfect world, government money would not go to such projects (or to the Comcast building in Philadelphia, PNC's new building in Pittsburgh, etc.), in the rather backassward world of sports, I am reasonably happy about this, and not just as a rabid hockey fan.

To be blunt, if there's a sports facility that _should_ be partially publicly financed, an arena is it. In Pittsburgh, we have PNC Park which is used probably 85 days a year, mostly for the poor excuse for an MLB franchise, the Pirates. It gets very little use, other than that. Heinz Field is even worse. The Steelers play their 8 home games, Pitt plays 5 or 6 home dates and there may be a concert or three in the summer. That's 17 dates. All year.

Arenas, meanwhile, should have events 200-250 nights a year (Hockey w/out playoffs would only take up 41-45 dates.) Well-managed arenas in vibrant markets can have over 300. That's a LOT of parking revenue, restaurant/bar visits and activity over the course of a year. Far more than stand-alone baseball or football stadiums.

That alone, from an economic/philosophical standpoint, makes this deal pretty damn good in my eyes. Throw in that state money that was appropriated for capital projects would just be used elsewhere and that the slots licensee, whomever that turns out to be, is chipping in a lot of the cost AND that the Pens themselves are shelling out serious dough and I feel that it's a fair deal for all sides.

I also like the incentive clause written in for the Penguins to redevelop the former Mellon Arena site once it is demolished. This is key because when Three Rivers Stadium was built in 1970, the Pirates and Steelers did not have any incentive to develop the surrounding parking lots. Think about it; if people are coming to see your team play, would you want them drinking beer or eating outside the stadium? And would you want to make it more difficult to park? I think not. Adding incentives to the Steelers and Pirates stadium deals _has_ paid dividends. As much as I HATE to admit the idiots who run Pittsburgh actually did something right, they did a good job with this important detail and I expect similar development success with the former arena site.

While this is all well and good, philosophically I _do_ disagree with state/local funding of stadium projects. Unfortunately, it will most likely take an act of Congress to stop this activity. There will always be a city seeking to boost its profile by trying to attract professional sports and until limits or caps are placed on funding of arenas/stadiums using tax dollars, this activity will most likely intensify. Especially in 10-15 years as the facilities built during the 1990s building boom start to become "obsolete."

That's my two cents on the long-awaited arena deal. Now I can start blogging about hockey and everything else without worrying that my favorite team (yeah I like hockey a little more than football) will skip town.

I'm sorry

This is the first update in quite awhile. The reasons are varied: new responsibilities at work combined with family matters beginning the process of purchasing our first home have played havoc with my schedule. I hope to throw some general interest posts up this weekend.

NHL Western Conference Jerseys: the quick and dirty on the good, the bad and the ugly

I need to finish my assessment on NHL jerseys. I wanted to do this a couple weeks ago, but due to a death in the family, I haven't had the time until now:

Chicago - If the 'Hawks ever return to prominence, look for the PC crowd to go after the Indian head that's adorned this very wonderful jersey (sadly, besides Martin Havlat - the only thing about the Blackhawks that could be described with a positive adjective.) A 3rd jersey featuring a more literal Blackhawk might hold off the eventual furor.

Columbus - I just read their changing to the secondary logo, which I feel is a good thing. The bug concept they utilized the first couple years of the franchise wasn't bad, just the execution. Bring back the bug, but make it blue (not neon-green) and make it mean.

Detroit - Classic uniform in the Montreal Canadians tier. Absolutely nothing needs to be done.

Nashville - The Predators' regular unis look rather non-descript. The main logo is fine, but they need some color - maybe some Titan-blue. Also, drop the 3rd jersey, or at least the logo, like a bad habit. The sabre-toothed tiger looks like it's constipated.

St. Louis - The Blues jerseys have never been exciting or flashy, but they've slowly become a classic.

Calgary - The flaming "C" works well, as does the 3rd jersey's flaming horsehead. Red and Black are never bad colors to use.

Colorado - I've always liked the main jerseys, but the "fake-retro" 3rd jersey must go, or at least the irritating ties that adorn them.

Edmonton - Because of the success of the '80s teams and the association with Gretzky, the main jerseys have become classics. The 3rd jersey's logo is rather disturbing (think phallic), but the colors are great. Transfer the regular logo to that one and we'll have perfection.

Minnesota - The colors are great, but the logo is just weird. A bear with a lake, trees and moon inside of it? I get it, but I don't have to like it. The logo juxtaposed with the retro jersey looks ridiculous too.

Vancouver - From the team with the most horrendous jerseys ever to a team with really cool ones? It can happen. The killer whale works great as a logo and the colors are understated, in a good way.

Anaheim - I'll admit, I'm not enthused that they kept "Ducks" as the nickname (I would've preferred Aviators myself), but they've done the best they could, with what they've got. The black and orange is somewhat reminiscent of the old-school Penguins, but it still works. The orange accents are unique as well.

Dallas - I give the Stars credit for not copying the Mavericks and Rangers and adopting aspects of the uber-popular Cowboys. The green and gold are surprisingly unique in the NHL.

Los Angeles - The purple and black works well for this franchise as they seem to have more injuries than anybody else.

Phoenix - The change in logo and uniform was rather extreme, but I've acquired a taste for it. The red "USSR" look works well. It's a wonder other teams, especially in non-traditional markets, haven't adopted looks of European national teams.

San Jose - The Sharks have always had a great look about them. Going with a more sea-green color shows a couple things: 1. Teal didn't last forever. 2. The franchise, the first of '90s expansion teams, has matured into force, on and off the ice.

NHL Jerseys: The good, the bad and the slightly putrid

I wanted to write about something a little more fun than my "Save the Pens" rant, so I think, with the debut of the new sleeker uniforms at the All-Star Game a few nights ago, it's time for my opinions on each team's current jerseys and what should, or shouldn't be, changed.

I'll start in the East and then do a separate post for the West.

Pittsburgh - Of course, I'm going to talk about my team first. I feel no major changes are needed. Some people don't like the Las Vegas Gold, but I think it differentiates them from the Steelers and Pirates. A new third jersey for next year would be nice.

New Jersey - There isn't many changes you could make that wouldn't draw the unwanted attention of Christian fundamentalists. A 3rd jersey featuring the legendary Jersey Devil creature could be a lot of fun.

NY Islanders - Again, not much that can be changed. I would like to see them drop the orange crush jersey however.

NY Rangers - Am I the only one who hates the retro ties? A cool idea would be to incorporate a camouflage 3rd jersey to honor our military, particularly the U.S. Army Rangers. I doubt that MSG would have the courage for something that bold and pro-military in the heart of downtown Manhattan.

Philadelphia - No real complaints here. Unlike the Isles, a big dopey orange jersey fits this franchise well.

Boston - The classic "B" in the wheel look will never get outdated. Heck, even the 3rd jersey with the bear head is a nice mix of modern design, with the kid-friendly clawmarks on the shoulders, and tradition, as the team wisely stuck with a classic bear head.

Buffalo - Yeah. I was building to this. Who allowed these guys to change their name to the Snails? The logo is atrocious. The rest of the uniform isn't bad, it's just too busy and too Euro for my taste. Seriously, they could've just taken the old red and black unis and switched the colors to blue and gold. Come on. Or just use their original unis, but update them a bit (a la current Pittsburgh Penguins.) I have a great appreciation for what this organization has done on the ice, but I'm really glad I'm not a Sabres fan just because of these horrendous jerseys.

Montreal - No changes needed..........ever. I have a tremendous amount of respect for this team and organization. My 2nd favorite NHL team, the jersey is a classic and rests with Yankees pinstripes and the Green Bay Packers on the "untouchable" jersey category.

Ottawa - The use of the Praetorian Guard for a mascot elevates the notion of "Senator" from a bunch of grumpy old men (and women) to something that can be cool and very intimidating. One of the best of the post-Original 21 era.

Toronto - I know they're Original Six, but the uniform is BORING. The logo is EVEN MORE BORING. A blue maple leaf outline with the words "TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS." Ugh! The sad thing is I have no idea how to remedy the situation.

Atlanta - I still have no idea how Atlanta Thrasher fandom began to be identified as "Blueland", but the blue 3rds are pretty cool. The regular jerseys are ok as well. About as good as you can get considering the mascot is an aggressive robin.

Carolina - Yawn. A hockey puck surrounded by swirlies. Yay. The red is fairly distinctive at least.

Florida - The Panthers unis, unlike the rest of the operation, actually work pretty well. The coolest touch has to be the crossed hockey stick and palm tree. At least it's not teal.

Tampa Bay - I never understood the mixed fonts in the words "Tampa Bay" and "LIGHTNING", but overall this works pretty well.

Washington - Let's face it. Any change was better than their original uniforms. And the Eagle and Capitol Building work pretty well. I wouldn't ask Leonisis how that whole "America's Team" promotion went, considering they're having trouble promoting themselves as Washington's team. And they even have Ovechkin.

Save the Pens....or have we already?

Hockey fans are obviously aware of the plight of the Pittsburgh Penguins. For those not aware the quick version (feel free to scroll past the next three paragraphs if you're already familiar):

Team plays in a dilapidated old arena, but receives great fan support, excellent TV ratings and has a young nucleus that most likely will lead to a Stanley Cup or two (or maybe three) in the next few years. City/County say they have no $ for new arena for last 7 years, then the state passes legislation to start slots parlors/casinos. Penguins owner, Mario Lemieux, Hall of Fame hockey player, two-time Stanley Cup winner, multiple MVP, cancer survivor and all-around OK guy, then partners with a casino (Isle of Capri, known as IOC) company. If IOC wins Pittsburgh's lone slots license, they will pay for the arena (yes, including the urinals.)

IOC's partnering with the Penguins forces the politicians to, in turn, force the other two casino companies vying for Pittsburgh's slots license to ante up and contribute $7.5 mill over 30 years to a new arena, if either of them win. Of course, being that we live in Pennsylvania and our politicians and government couldn't possibly accept a free arena, the benevolent idiots on the State Gaming Board choose one of these companies - Majestic Star, owned by Don Barden - for the slots license.

The Penguins ownership then goes to Kansas City, which has almost finished a sparkling brand-new arena. They're offered a lease for free and the opportunity to invest in a 50% stake in the new arena. Meanwhile, our politicians realize, like most of the characters on Arrested Development at one time or another, that they've made a terrible mistake, and begin to negotiate a deal to build a new arena and keep the Pens in town. Everything seemed to be going well, until, at least reports say this, the aforementioned Mr. Barden decided to stick his nose in and try to get development rights around the current arena site as well as parking. Our fearless leader, Gov. Rendell, also started shooting his mouth off about how this deal is the best deal any PA team has ever gotten and that the Pens want $10 mill to pay off IOC since they didn't get the license (probably a poison pill to keep the Pens from negotiating before the license was awarded.) Too bad Kansas City isn't in PA. Mario Lemieux then states they're disappointed in the current deal and will examine all their options, including relocation - this week's candidate is Houston.

The issues appear to be the following:

1. The Pens $10 million payment to IOC. They want some relief from the state on this.

2. The state's insistence that Barden get the bulk of the development and parking revenue from the current arena site.

Notice I didn't say anything about an arena? Ok. Good.

My strongly held belief is that the arena deal itself is near-complete. The problems revolve around who gets the revenue from developing the old Mellon Arena site. If this is the case, it should come down to a simple negotiation between Barden and the Pens ownership. Without the Pens, a new arena does not get built. Without a new arena, Barden doesn't get to redevelop the old arena site as he promised. The solution is simple. Barden either has to put up more money for the arena, meaning the Pens put up less OR Barden has to cave to the Pens demands for revenue from the old arena site and parking revenue. The politicians and SEA need to step away from the situation and allow this negotiation to happen.

A lot of people have a lot to lose if this falls through and the team leaves town. Here's my rundown:

1. Barden - If he breaks his promise to redevelop the Hill, he will lose credibility among Hill District residents and the region-at-large, not to mention the backlash that will surely hurt his business if the Pens leave town.

2. Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl - This poor kid's political career will be toast before he's 28.

3. County Executive Dan Onorato - Speculation says he plans to run for governor in 2010. If this is the case, the western half of the state (his supposed home base) will be pretty unhappy if the relocated Pens have brought Kansas City or Houston a couple Stanley Cups by then. Hell, he may have trouble just being re-elected to his current job.

4. Governor Ed Rendell - Yeah. Ed can't run again. For governor anyway. I believe if he doesn't get on the presidential ticket next year, he might want to run for Senate. (Let's face facts: Arlen Spector isn't getting any younger.) I believe this is why he's trying so hard to keep the team here. Plus if people don't go to Barden's casino, the state's take goes down, which means it will be harder to lower property taxes (the whole point of the slots), which will hurt the biggest proponent of slots casinos: Ed Rendell.

5. Sports & Exhibition Authority - Yeah. These guys want to be stuck with an arena that's falling apart with no anchor tenant. I doubt the AHL would ice a team there if the Pens leave.

So here we are. I didn't even mention the weaknesses inherent in moving to team to either Kansas City or Houston. Mainly that negotiations to sell the team would be with one buyer in either city, killing any leverage for the current ownership. And I highly doubt there'll be a bidding war at this point or it would've started by now. Plus I doubt Les Alexander (owner of the Houston Rockets) and Boots DelBiaggio (the only guy authorized to own a NHL team in KC) are dumb enough to get into one.

Lemieux will go to Houston at the end of the week and check out their arena and this will put the pressure on the politicians and Barden to meet again. However by the end of next week (Groundhog Day folks), I believe a deal will be completed. I have no inside info to confirm this; just my intuition based on what I know about the situation. In the end, everyone, including Lemieux, is out to maximize revenues and cover their own behinds.

And that's why I think the Pens will stay in Pittsburgh.

Where I live: pros and cons

As I stated in my introductory post, I live in a small town in western Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh is the nearest metro area and the region is generally identified with the city and surrounding suburbs. For those of you unfamiliar with the area, I'd like to present what's good about this part of the USA....and what's not so good.

The Pros of western Pennsylvania/Pittsburgh:

1. This is a family-oriented region. People are generally friendly and if you're in trouble, they're relatively eager to help out.

2. Excellent educational resources. Namely the universities, including, in order of prominence: Carnegie Mellon, Penn State (sorta western PA), Pitt, Duquesne, IUP and Robert Morris. That doesn't even include several small private colleges such as, Grove City, St. Vincent, St. Francis and Westminster.

3. Excellent cultural amenities. The Carnegie Museums, Symphony and Ballet are world-class. Falling Water is a national treasure and the Pittsburgh Zoo is a fun day out. Throw the sports teams here as well. The Steelers are one of the best-run organizations in sports, while the Penguins, assuming they stay in Pittsburgh, have the most promise. The Pirates....well....let's just say they have a long and storied history that, until 15 years ago, actually included winning seasons and championships once in awhile. *heh*

4. Scenery - This is beautiful country. A favorite, and cheap, way to spend time with my wife involves just going for a drive down a road we've never been on before. The farms are generally well-kept and even the burnt-out coal towns are interesting. Pittsburgh itself has a beautiful skyline, with Downtown and Squirrel Hill being the most attractive neighborhoods.

5. Cheap Living - Housing has not become outlandishly expensive like it has in much of the country. Having a declining population is a big reason for this. The same reasoning applies to most other necessities as well. Gasoline is usually below the national average.

6. Good Healthcare - I list this last, because I fear this may change as UPMC (that's University of Pittsburgh Medical Center) continues to gobble up hospitals and practices and the effects of PA's horrendous lawyer-driven malpractice laws further discourages doctors from opening practices in PA and drives others out of state. Despite this Pittsburgh, which is where many folks with serious illnesses end up, generally rates pretty well when it comes to the quality of its hospitals and doctors.


Now for the Cons. There aren't as many, but they're still very important.

1. Economy - Since the steel mills began shutting down in the 1970s, western PA's economy has been either contracting or lagging behind most of the rest of the nation. Diversification has begun to happen in fits and starts, as banking, finance, health care and high tech have assumed greater importance. Some manufacturing has returned as well in recent years, attracted by the educated, hard-working workforce. I have some ideas to improve the area's economic prospects, but as this is supposed to be a summary, I'll move on.

2. Government - This covers a lot. In large part, I blame government interference in the economy for the region's inability to sustain economic growth. High taxes, excessive business regulation and a lack of will to do the things that make the most sense are all pervasive on the state level as well as on the local level in Pittsburgh proper. A lack of political will to change PA into a right-to-work state has hurt the region's economic prospects more than anything else. It's why so many businesses move to the Southern US or overseas. But again, this is a summary so I'll move on.

3. Government Corruption - Ok, maybe I'm not moving on just yet. It's one thing to support economically-flawed policy and projects, which #2 basically covers, but it's a whole other ballgame when you consider the rampant corruption that is endemic at various state agencies (PennDOT, Turnpike Commission, anyone?) and in certain municipalities (City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County; do I hear a second on that motion?) The amount of government waste in this state is unbelievable. But let's move on. (I'm not kidding this time.)

4. Roads - PA's roads are notoriously bad. And western PA's are generally worse. Much of this is weather-related and I respect that, however #3 comes into play here as well. (Ok I lied again, so sue me. At least this is a nice segue way to #5.)

5. Weather - Depending on where you live, the typical PA resident has to deal with floods, tornadoes, hurricanes (in the Phillie area), hail, blizzards (the whole state) and, yes, even earthquakes (NE PA gets them every so often.) The weather isn't for the faint of heart, but it's not like Florida or the Gulf Coast, nor is it as snowy as western NY or as cold as Michigan. In fact, it's not that bad, but it's not that nice either. Hell, I'd probably make this a pro if I was posting this in the summer.

So there you have it. Where I live. I'm one of those people who believe that where one lives can say a lot about what they are all about. I will, or course, be going into more detail, especially about the cons, as time goes on and events warrant.

Why I believe what I believe...

My random question in my profile asks why you believe what you believe. I feel it is only fair to answer that question myself.

Like most people, my family has played an important part in shaping my beliefs, both from a political and cultural standpoint. From an early age, I was taught that hard work and discipline would/could lead to success in life. Duty, both to family and to country, was a concept that was placed at the highest point on the pedestal of ideals.

But before a conclusion can be made that I am simply marching in lockstep with my elders, I want to emphasize that my family, especially my grandparents, taught me how to think, not just what to think. Thinking logically, in concert with established principles, forms the basis for my beliefs and opinions on most topics. I suppose that's why.

So what do I believe? Politically, that limited government can be most easily controlled by its citizens (that's you and me, folks) and that government expansion gradually erodes, directly and indirectly, our freedoms as guaranteed in the Constitution. Culturally, while I am not a prude, I do believe in basic parameters on how we should treat one another and it's when those parameters start to break down that society follows. The American media does a fantastic job in not only breaking down these parameters and blaming other people and concepts for the results of their actions BUT ALSO passing judgment on those who *ahem* try to pass judgment (i.e. say something is wrong or not as good as it could/should be.)

But most importantly, I believe in humanity. Not in the sense that everybody is a good person, and they're just "misunderstood." There is evil in this world and I will spend considerable time on this blog discussing that. I believe that humanity is resilient and will, over time, do the right thing. And the most important things necessary for humanity to do the right thing (which is always subject to debate I suppose) is to a. be free and b. have incentive. Over time I hope to define a. and b., which should cause much teeth-gnashing.

This is NOT a Star Wars blog.

While I love the movies, have even read a couple novels and comics over the years, this is a blog about a variety of things separated appropriately:

Current Events – anything that’s happening in the here and now. (No big surprise there.)

Politics – Yes. I am a republican. And I also like to eat puppies and kittens with hot sauce and fava beans . These are essays about my opinions on all the political issues I care about…and some I don’t.

Comics – I am a comic-book (graphic novel? Who knows what to call them these days.) geek. This section will have occasional reviews and essays on comic-related topics.

Western PA (that’s “Pennsylvania” for the international audience) News – As I do live in western PA, this contains my opinions on local/regional topics. I’ll even include some articles on my favorite sports teams: the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Pittsburgh Penguins.

Stories – My concepts for various comic book series in short story format. While I enjoy the superhero genre, my own stuff edges more into science fiction.

Miscellaneous – Anything that doesn’t fit into the above categories.

I also realize that certain articles will fit into two or more categories. When that happens I will try to post them appropriately.

So who is this guy anyway?

I’m a western PA native, “30-ish”, married (very happily, sorry ladies), more or less average guy with very strong opinions, thoughts and ideas on any number of topics. Which also answers the inevitable “why am I doing this?” question. Not only will this site serve as a platform to express my ideas and opinions, but I’d like it to evolve into a place of civil discourse, something that is in short supply in the USA and especially on the Internet.

DISCLAIMER: One thing you won’t find here is information about my job/career. I’ll keep it simple: I work for a mid-sized company, in a good position and have nothing bad to say about my employer. The closest to anything related to my job I will post will be in relation to politics and other current events. (i.e. “A guy I work with said “x” about “y.”)

DISCLAIMER THE SEQUEL: I’m also going to avoid mentioning much about my personal life as well. Thankfully I have a supportive wife and come from a very supportive family. However, I don’t want this to turn into some sort of online diary about the dramas in my life. If you blog and enjoy that sort of thing, that’s fine. It’s just not my thing.