My View

Random ruminations from your resident curmudgeon...

In the face of a massive recession, the federal government introduced a spending and stimulus program that was heretofore unheard of. Agencies were created to carry out infrastructure spending and to create jobs. Government sponsored enterprises- quasi governmental agencies that operated with the blessing and the backing of the federal government- used enormous amounts of tax dollars to bail out banks. Sweeping regulations and laws were passed that intruded into the previously unregulated private sector of the economy. The debt of the federal government had ballooned to gargantuan proportions that had never been seen before in the history of our great nation. In fact, here is what the President said about the entire situation,

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. We have never made good on our promises."

Have I just described our current situation? No. We have been here before, under Franklin D. Roosevelt, and these were all measures that were taken during the course of his administration to attempt to repair an ailing economy. FDR and his economic team made things worse, however, with their misguided attempts to stimulate the economy. Today, we are doing the same things. And things are going to get significantly worse in our economy because history has shown that this type of spending and regulation of private industry does not work. It calls to mind another quote, this one from George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

I was wondering, do deaf mathematicians speak in sine language?


Have you heard of United Nations Agenda 21? No? Actually, you have, just not under that name. UN Agenda 21 addresses "smart growth" and "sustainable development" in developed nations. And who wouldn't want "smart growth and sustainable development"- why it just makes one feel all warm and want to rush out and hug a koala, doesn't it? Here is the truth about UN Agenda 21 and it is not pretty. Agenda 21, if fully implemented will have a dramatic impact on where and how we live. One of the stated objectives of the proposed smart growth plan is to create more dense urban dwellings while leaving rural areas undeveloped. Agenda 21 accomplishes this by proposing an international infrastructure to account for and control assets (read: property) and determine the best use for them. In light of the objective of higher density and no development of rural areas, what do you, dear reader, think this international controlling authority might have as a perspective? There is pressure being applied to our country to buy in to the false pretense of "smart growth" and "sustainable development". All of us want a clean environment, but none of us want to be told how or where to live. UN Agenda 21 is a giant step in that direction.

My intellectual property is in foreclosure.

One of the critical things this country must do to better complete in a global economy is to upgrade our educational outcomes. More children that are coming out of high school need to go on to earn an undergraduate degree. For those parents that are currently paying for college costs, you know how painful that can be financially. Here are the startling numbers: according to the College Board, tuition and fees have increased at public universities 130% over the last 20 years. That is an average annual increase of 6.5%. Those numbers do not include room and board or books. Unfortunately, for many families, incomes have not risen commensurately with the increase in tuition. In fact, the College Board reports that the median income is $33,000. If you adjust that for inflation, incomes have remained flat over the past 20 years. And this is a dilemma for our nation. How do we get more children into the higher education system when the costs are screaming out of sight and pricing many families out of a college degree? There are no easy solutions, but look for more on-line and non-traditional degree programs to emerge. And if you are a parent of a young child, I will give you the same sage advice that the comedian Killer Beaz uses in his comedy act: "Save up".

I would give my right arm to be ambidextrous.

And that, my friends, is my view.

Predators Name Horachek Associate Coach

The Nahville Predators today named Peter Horachek Associate Coach, a title previously held by Brent Peterson, who has moved to the front office.In the Predators hierarchy, the Associate Coach is the senior of the two assistant coaches. Here is the press release from the team.


Nashville, Tenn. (June 15, 2011) – Nashville Predators President of Hockey Operations/General Manager David Poile announced today that Predators Assistant Coach Peter Horachek has been promoted to Associate Coach.

Horachek has been a part of the team’s coaching staff since the 2003-04 season, helping the Predators to Stanley Cup Playoff berths in six of his first seven seasons. Horachek has also helped the Predators reach the 40-win mark in each of the last six seasons, while amassing the League’s sixth-highest win total (272) since 2005-06.

“Peter has brought great energy, passion and knowledge to our coaching staff for the last seven seasons,” Poile said. “He has played a significant role in our overall success, including the development of so many homegrown players. He is very deserving of this promotion.

Prior to joining the Predators coaching staff on June 19, 2003, Horachek served as head coach of Nashville’s primary developmental affiliate in the AHL, the Milwaukee Admirals. He guided the Admirals to a 32-27-14-7 record and their first playoff series victory since 1998. Prior to becoming head coach of the Admirals, the Stoney Creek, Ont., native won championships as a coach and a player. In 2000-01, Horachek coached the Orlando Solar Bears to the International Hockey League championship. The Solar Bears went 12-4 in the Turner Cup Playoffs and Horachek was named the 2001 IHL Coach of the Year. He also spent time as head coach of the ECHL’s Trenton Titans, head coach/director of hockey operations for the ECHL’s Nashville Knights, and as an assistant with Saginaw of the International League. He also served as a player/assistant coach with Flint (IHL).

As a player, Horachek held the title of team captain in four of his five seasons with the Saginaw/Flint Generals and won a Turner Cup Championship in 1984. In 545 career professional games, he tallied 188 goals and 238 assists (188g-238a-426pts).

What's Different About Winnipeg?

Winnpeggers (Winnipeglets?) welcomed the NHL back to the plains of Manitoba as the True North Sports and Entertainment purchased the Atlanta Thrashers, a franchise that had been totaled by the inept ownership that was the Atlanta Spirit Group. It was not just any welcome, as the owners were able to secure commitments to purchase 13,000 season tickets  faster than you could say "relocation"; and the citizens rejoiced in the streets with a fervor normally reserved for Stanley Cup celebrations.

Winnipeg's first dance with the NHL lasted from 1979 to 1996, and the on-ice product had more highs than lows, as the then Jets made the playoffs 11 of their 15 years in the League and the team had quality players on their roster.

All indications were that this was a franchise that would last in the strong Canadian market. Instead, the team was relocated to Phoenix and reincarnated as the Coyotes after the 1996 season.

So what went wrong?

Even more importantly, what is different about Winnipeg today that would allow an NHL team to survive?

To answer that question, we need to look back at Winnipeg at the time the Jets left and compare it to the city that is receiving the Thrashers as well as the business and political conditions that  are existent today. This comparison will use census data from 1996 and 2006, the last year for which there is a census. Numbers for 2011 will be extrapolated or will come from other sources.

According to the census data for Winnipeg in 1996, the total population was 618,477; in 2011 it is estimated to be 764,200 in the census metropolitan area (CMA), which includes the city of Winnipeg along with its suburban areas. The city itself is estimated to have 693,200 residents. The province of Manitoba had 1,243,700 residents as of the end of 2010 according to Statistics Canada. Both the City of Winnipeg and the CMA have averaged just over 2% population growth from 1996 to 2011.

The average total before tax income in Winnipeg in 1996 was $24,012; in 2006 was $49,794. This is an average annual increase of 5.1% Projecting the 2011 average income at the same rate of growth, average income would be approximately $63,852.

The work force in Winnipeg in 1996 was a total of 315,950, with 258,135 (81.6%) employed in the service sector. The 2006 census shows a workforce of 385,870, with the service industry again the largest sector of the work force (82.9%). The growth in the work force has mirrored the growth in the general population, averaging 2.2% annually.

Winnipeg's largest employers are the Government of Manitoba, the University of Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro, the Manitoba Health Sciences Centre, and the City of Winnipeg . Great West Life Assurance, Motor Coach Industries, Boeing Canada Technology, and Shaw Cable Systems are some of the city's largest private employers. The Royal Canadian Mint is also located in Winnipeg.

Examining the city, Winnipeg appears to be a growing, economically healthy city. Growth has been steady but not astounding. The population has grown by approximately 150,000 from the time that the Jets left for warmer climes, and average household incomes have grown just over 5% annually.

Good numbers, but not eye-popping.

So what is really different about Winnipeg?

Other than the growth in population and average income that was just mentioned, not much.

So what makes Winnipeg a city that can support an NHL team now?

There are three critical factors that have changed since the NHL last called Winnipeg home, and I would contend that without these external factors in play, the NHL would be hard pressed to justify placing a team in Winnipeg.

The first is the value of the Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar. When the Jets left Winnipeg in 1996, the Canadian dollar was worth about .60 to the U. S. dollar. This crippled not only the Jets but every team in Canada, as revenues were received in Canadian dollars and salaries were being paid in U.S. dollars. One doesn't have to be a rocket surgeon to realize that a protracted period of undervaluation of the Canadian dollar was economically crushing to all Canadian hockey clubs. Today, the Canadian dollar is priced at $1.02 versus the U.S. dollar. The Canadian dollar at or near parity with the U.S. dollar closely matches revenue streams with expenses and is advantageous for all Canadian teams and will certainly be beneficial for the team in Winnipeg

The second condition that works in favor of a team in Winnipeg today is the presence of a salary cap. Like it or not, the cap provides True North with some degree of cost certainty that was missing the last time the NHL was in Winnipeg. This allows a smaller market team like Winnipeg- which is now the smallest NHL city- to stay competitive with teams in larger metropolitan markets, but the most important aspect of the cap is a degree of cost certainty for the owners.

The third condition that was not existent in the time of the former incarnation of the Jets is revenue sharing.

Wait... What??

Revenue sharing?

Decried by many of the Canadian hockey "pundits" as welfare for smaller market teams, revenue sharing will be of a benefit to a team in Winnipeg. Not that they will have trouble selling tickets- they won't. They will be operating out of the smallest arena in the NHL for the foreseeable future, and even though Winnipeggers (Winnipeglets?) will pay the second highest average ticket prices in the NHL, physical limitations of the MTS Centre will in turn limit the gate receipts for the the team. Revenue sharing will benefit this small market Canadian team just like it benefits small market U.S. teams, and this will mitigate some of the operating costs of True North.

(As an aside, there is not doubt in my mind that if the MTS Centre is expanded to NHL standards that the team in Winnipeg could potentially be a net positive earning team that would contribute to the revenue sharing pool instead of drawing from it.)

There are other obvious factors at play such as the financial soundness of David Thomson and Mark Chipman, owners of True North. The quality and financial horsepower of the owners cannot be discounted. They have the ability to carry this franchise through any lean times.  The MTS Centre, although the smallest in the NHL, is only five years old and is a better facility than what the Jets played in during their time in Winnipeg.

This is not to say that there will not be challenges to the NHL being successful in Winnipeg. Should the aforementioned parity in the loonie and the dollar revert back to the conditions of the mid 1990's, the economic strain on all Canadian teams, not just Winnipeg, will be significantly negative.

Winnipeg itself faces some particular challenges. According to the Conference Board of Canada, an economic think tank, the minimum population to support an NHL team is 800,000. Winnipeg falls just under that threshold. With a CFL team in the same city, the Conference Board estimates that there should be a population of at least 1,000,000 to support both.  The lack of a large corporate base in Winnipeg also could be challenging, as corporate sponsorship dollars will be spread between two professional teams. And while the average income in Winnipeg has risen significantly since the NHL was last there, the locals will be paying the second highest average ticket price in the League. Should the local economy take a hit, this will inevitably put a strain on ticket sales.

It is negative speculation to say that the NHL will not succeed in Winnipeg. I think it will. There will be challenges, however.

So while Winnipeg as a city has changed over time, the key factors that will determine success are primarily external to the city itself. Without the parity of the loonie to the dollar; the salary cap; and revenue sharing, the NHL in Winnipeg might have continued to be an unfulfilled wish.

My View

Random ruminations from your resident curmudgeon...

Right now, green energy is the latest sexy fad. There is much attention being paid to solar, wind, and biomass sources of energy, and currently, green energy provides 3.6% of all our energy needs in the United States. The stated goal of many in Washington is to replace our dependence on fossil fuels with renewable sources. The question we should all be asking is "What will a move to green energy cost?" According to Vaclav Smil, an energy expert, going totally green will cost our country upwards of $4 TRILLION over the next 10 years. These are the estimated costs to replace our current energy system with renewable sources. Here is the truth about green energy. Going totally green is going to put our economy at a decided disadvantage. There are five reasons why. First, green energy is very diffuse, meaning simply that it takes an enormous amount of land and material to generate even a small amount of energy. Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University calculates that the entire state of Connecticut would need to be devoted to wind turbines just to provide enough power to meet the needs of New York City. Second, green energy is extremely costly. For instance, wind energy is 80% more costly to produce than gas fired electrical generators. Third, green energy is unreliable. Wind power is dependent on, well, the wind, which doesn't blow consistently. Fourth, renewable sources of energy are scarce. Massive amounts of land are needed to grow biomass crops or to establish wind farms. The availability of real estate next to population centers is limited and costly. Finally, electricity produced by the sun or wind cannot be efficiently stored because battery technology is not advanced enough to meet this requirement. While we are all concerned about the environment, going totally green is a canard that will severely damage our economy. Remember that the next time a politician touts a "green" economy.

I have stopped fighting my inner demons. We are on the same side now.

This week, Government, uh, General Motors CEO Dan Akerson said he wanted to see the federal gas tax raised by $1.00 per gallon. Why? To force consumers to buy more fuel efficient cars. The arrogance of that idea is surpassed only by its idiocy. According to Akerson, he believes that that the higher tax will move consumers to buying smaller, more fuel efficient cars rather than the cars consumers want to purchase. "People will start buying more Cruzes and they will start buying less Suburbans," said Akerson. Here is a thought, Dan. If GM made quality small cars that met the needs of the consumer, there would be no need for a higher tax to FORCE people to buy something they either do not want or does not meet their needs. Akerson's statement embodies one of the fundamental problems that has plagued American automobile makers throughout the years, and that is that the car companies have not made a product that appeals to consumers nor meets their needs. Dan, the market works, and the market is telling you that they don't want your small car product. When you understand the markets and how they work, you will have made a major step toward making GM a viable car company.

Isn't the term "criminal lawyer" a redundant statement?

Here is the painful truth about the financial situation that we face in our country: our unfunded obligations- what we owe for what our country has promised in entitlement payments- now stands at $61.6 TRILLION dollars. That amounts to $534,000 per household. Now, in the discussion of our nation's bleak financial picture, you will hear that we have a deficit of $1.5 trillion, not the $61.6 trillion I just referenced. The $1.5 trillion is the CURRENT year deficit. If the government had to account for all of its obligations, like every business in this country does, the real number becomes the $61.6 trillion figure. These payments are owed to seniors under the Social Security program along with Medicare and Medicaid payments for which the government is obligated as well as federal retirement programs. As Washington dallies with adopting real solutions, our problem is only going to get worse. With a debt of this magnitude, the only solutions are real structural changes to these programs that will be painful. And the longer that Washington waits to craft these solutions, the worse it will be for all taxpayers.

My mind is not twisted, just sprained.

And that, my friends, is my view.

Lambert Named Assistant Coach; Mitch Korn Re-signed

Lane Lambert will step behind the Nashville Predators bench next season, taking the place of Associate Coach Brent Peterson. Peterson will be moving to an administrative role with the Predators front office as the advance of his Parkinson's disease has limited his ability to coach.

Here is the press release from the Predators organization:


Nashville Predators President of Hockey Operations/General Manager David Poile announced today that Lane Lambert, formerly the head coach of the team’s primary developmental affiliate, the American Hockey League’s Milwaukee Admirals, will join the Nashville coaching staff as an assistant for the 2011-12 season. Poile also announced the re-signing of goaltending coach Mitch Korn.

“Lane is one of the best young up-and-coming coaches in the sport today,” Poile said. “Similar to our philosophy on player development, we believe in promoting from within whenever possible. Lane has successfully coached and mentored more than half the players on our current roster, and many more who are coming through the pipeline, so he will fit seamlessly into Barry Trotz’s staff.”

In four seasons as the Admirals head coach from 2007-11, Lambert led the club to a 178-118-37 record, the sixth-most wins in the AHL in that span while giving up the second-fewest goals (821). Milwaukee posted 40-or-more wins and 90-or-more points all four seasons under Lambert as well, making them the first team in League history to reach the marks in eight consecutive campaigns. The Melfort, Saskatchewan native helped the Ads capture a pair of West Division titles in his tenure in Milwaukee, posting the Western Conference’s highest point total in 2010-11 (102 pts, 44-22-14 record) despite seeing 10 of his core players recalled to the Predators during the campaign. He also captured a division title in 2008-09 when he led a young squad to 49-22-9 record, tying for the most points (107) in the AHL. The win total tied a club record since the team joined the AHL for the 2001-02 campaign.

Eleven members of Nashville’s 2011 playoff roster played for Lambert in Milwaukee, and 17 of the 33 players who suited up for the Predators for at least one 2010-11 regular season game spent time playing under his tutelage.

Prior to joining the Admirals as an assistant coach in 2006-07, Lambert spent one season as an assistant for the Bridgeport Sound Tigers, and three seasons as a coach in the Western Hockey League – two as head coach of the Prince George Cougars (2003-05) and one as an assistant for the Moose Jaw Warriors (2002-03). Lambert finished an 18-year playing career with the Houston Aeros in 2000-01.

Korn, who joined the organization on July 23, 1998, has worked with the Predators’ goaltenders and those in the Nashville developmental system for the last 13 years. The well-known goaltending coach has helped several Nashville goaltenders burst onto the NHL scene, the most recent being 2011 Vezina Trophy finalist Pekka Rinne, who ranked second in save percentage (.930) and third in goals-against average (2.12) this past season. His success cultivating netminders dates back to the 1998 Expansion Draft. Two-time Czech Olympian, 2010 World Champion and NHL All-Star Tomas Vokoun developed into one of the NHL’s elite netminders under Korn’s watch, while Chris Mason would follow, becoming a legitimate NHL starter after several seasons of working with Korn. In 2007-08, Dan Ellis developed into a No. 1 goalie after playing in just one NHL game prior to joining the Predators, leading the NHL in save percentage (.924) in his first full campaign, before giving way to rookie Rinne in 2008-09.
“Mitch Korn is the best goaltending coach in the National Hockey League, as evidenced by his development of this organization’s goaltenders from Year One with Mike Dunham and Tomas Vokoun, to this past season with Vezina Trophy finalist Pekka Rinne and promising rookie Anders Lindback,” Poile said. “Our goaltending is a big part of our success, and Mitch is at the forefront of that.”

Prior to joining the Predators on July 23, 1998, Korn spent seven seasons coaching the netminders in the Buffalo Sabres organization, where he enjoyed great success while working with two-time Hart Trophy-winner Dominik Hasek. While working with Korn, Hasek captured four Vezina Trophies and led the NHL with the best save percentage five times. Korn also saw Buffalo’s goaltending tandem (Hasek and Hall-of-Famer Grant Fuhr) capture the NHL’s Jennings Trophy (lowest team goals-against average) during the 1994-95 season. Besides Hasek and Fuhr, Korn also coached Olaf Kolzig, Steve Shields and Martin Biron.

Korn, who runs goaltending and defensemen schools around the country in the off-season, also contributes regularly to several hockey publications including USA Hockey Magazine and Goalies’ World.

Halting the Head Shot Horrors

Once again, the NHL has found itself dealing with an on-ice incident that has left one player with a severe concussion and the League having to mete out discipline based on less than concrete guidelines.

Boston's Nathan Horton was destroyed by a late hit from Vancouver's Aaron Rome in Game 3 of the Stanley Cup Finals. The destructive power of the hit left Horton prone on the ice, his mind in some other arena than the TD Garden, and being wheeled off the ice on a stretcher. Rome was given a 5 minute major for interference and a game misconduct. In a hearing the next day with the League's temporary sheriff, Mike Murphy, Rome was suspended for four games, removing him from the rest of the Stanley Cup finals.

There has been argument on both sides, with Boston fans claiming this was not enough of a punishment and Vancouver fans claiming the suspension was either too harsh or altogether unwarranted. From the perspective of the fan base, those arguments will never be resolved.

The real issue for the League is how to resolve the fact that the game is a fast paced , intense, and physical with the desire to protect players.

The League took a step in that direction with the establishment and emphasis on the Rule 48, the illegal check to the head. This rule prohibits the blind side hit (from behind) and lateral hit (from the side), and the heightened emphasis from the League has helped to cut down on the number of dangerous plays that resulted in serious injuries to players.

So why are we still talking about this? And more importantly, why did we see another player carted off the ice with his playing career in jeopardy?

There are three factors that contribute to the on-going problem with these types of hits.

The first is that Rule 48 is open to the vagaries of interpretation. For instance, how many times during the regular season did you hear an announcer talk about a player "turning into the hit" before being blown up by an opponent? Or ask if the contact was first "shoulder to shoulder" before witnessing a player nearly being decapitated? Oh yeah, all of us have heard a hit being described as a "hockey play" as a player is being destroyed by a check to the head, much like Raffi Torres did to Chicago's Brent Seabrook in Round 1 in a collision behind the net.

And nowhere in the language of Rule 48 does it prohibit a shot to an opponent's head if it coming from straight ahead.

These loopholes leave the on-ice officials with the dilemma of interpreting a play that has just occurred at full speed and trying to make a decision as to a penalty call and any further discipline.

So it should be easy for the League's disciplinarian, which will soon be former player Brendan Shanahan, to look at these plays and make a valid ruling as to the type of discipline that should be meted out when a violation of Rule 48 occurs?

Right?

Not really.

This is because of the second factor that comes into play in these situations, and that is the reliance on "intent" to determine the level of punishment. In reviewing these incidences, the League often relies on an interpretation- theirs- of the players intent in the play in question.

I would submit to you that is ludicrous.

Egregious offenders of League rules- think Todd Bertuzzi after his malicious hit on Steve Moore or Matt Cooke after his devastating hit on Marc Savard- never once have said it was their "intent" to hurt the other player. Believe that if you want, but please tell me how the League is going to judge intent in those situations or in any situation that is occurring at high speed and requires split second decisions on the ice?

Frankly, the League cannot determine intent and it is the height of arrogance on their part to think they can. Using intent as a basis for determining disciplinary action is so nebulous as to not be a standard at all.

Every parent has had the situation with their child where something has gone wrong, and one of the first things out of their innocent mouth is "I didn't mean to..." We as parents know that judging the intent of our children is next to impossible. More often than not, "I didn't mean to" translates into "I didn't think something bad would happen."

What the league is doing with the vague and subjective standard of determining intent is in essence saying, like a child, "I hope nothing bad happens." This is eventually going to lead to a disastrous outcome on the ice and is just insane.

"Hoping that nothing bad happens" is the third factor that comes into play in these dangerous situations. The League calls it "outcome", and they look at the result of the play to determine the measure of discipline that will be meted out to the offending player.

This begs the question, if Nathan Horton had gotten back up after that hit and was able to play, would Aaron Rome have received any supplemental discipline? Irrespective of the fact that Rome put a player in a very dangerous situation, would the League have done anything else if Horton was still playing?

Probably not.

And this is outrageous and will eventually lead to a player suffering a horrific injury.

Using the outcome of a play to determine any supplemental discipline continues to invite these types of plays. Regardless of outcome, a dangerous hit is a dangerous hit, and using outcome to mitigate the punishment of a player that puts another in peril with a dangerous hit is foolish.

There is much talk from players, coaches, management, and owners about players about the lack of respect for players by other players; that if we want these injuries to be eliminated, then players have to respect one another.

Frankly, respect has been talked to death.

Telling players to respect the game and to respect each other just isn't working.

So how do we keep the physicality in the game without endangering the players?

First, if the League is serious, eliminate all head shots. I know, purists will immediately say that it will take away the physical aspect of the game and forever alter the character of the on-ice product. I call B.S. The NFL has eliminated the helmet to helmet hit and the game is still a violent, physical contest. This doesn't mean that hits to the head don't occur in the NFL and would not occur in the NHL. They will. The NFL reviews those plays and any violations are adjudicated within 24 hours, usually with a fine.

The NHL could implement a similar system of fines or keep a system of suspensions in place, or some combination of the two. The important point for the League and the protection of the players is that the system be consistent and equitable. The penalty that  a grinder receives for delivering a blow to the head of an opponent should be no diffrent than the penalty that a "star" receives for the same action.

Which leads to the second, and I think obvious, necessity in reforming the system. Eliminate the inane attempt to determine intent. The League cannot determine intent, the officials on the ice cannot, and many times a player in the heat of a tightly fought contest cannot determine intent either. The League has to have consistent standards based on the action on the ice regardless of the motive in a player's heart.

Finally, remove the obscene standard of outcome. Using outcome to determine the type, if any, of the disciplinary action is beyond reason. Suppose I fire a gun at you with the intent to kill you and I miss (in real life, my aim is better than that, but we can talk about that later). If the American legal system used the NHL's "justice" standards, although my desire was to hit you with the shot and I missed, the outcome was not so bad, so I would receive a nominal punishment. Using outcome in this example has shown that a standard such as that devalues your life. Using outcome of a rules violation in the NHL shows that the players on the ice have been devalued by the League.

Obviously, a consistent and agreed upon set of disciplinary measures must be established with the players. With the upcoming CBA negotiations, what better time to bring this issue to the table. Players have to know without a doubt what will happen when they cross a line of behavior on the ice. Having a clearly defined set of standards and consequences has to be better than the League's chief disciplinarian having to call to currently recused disciplinarian as well as a rival team's GM to get input on the punishment. I don't care if Brian Burke formerly occupied that role, he is now the GM of a competing team and has had some not so stellar relations with the current owner of the team whose player was going to be disciplined.

Frankly, that is an embarrassing circus that the NHL has to determine discipline in this manner.

The inconsistency in dealing with these types of hits sullies the perception of the League among fans of the game as well as casual fans. More importantly, it places the players at undue risk. It is time for the League to step up and take responsibility for protecting players by implementing a consistent standard of no head shots and disciplinary action for violation of the rules.

Only then will the League halt the horrific injuries from head shots.

My View

Random ruminations from your resident curmudgeon...

We are all feeling the pain at the pump when we gas up our cars. Regular unleaded gasoline is averaging $3.89 per gallon nationally, and fueling our vehicles takes more money out of our pockets, money that could be spent in other areas of the economy. The current whipping boy for higher gasoline prices is the nameless, faceless entity known as "speculators". This group is blamed for driving fuel prices higher and in turn damaging our economy. But are they? Forget for just a moment our inept national energy policy (We have a national energy policy??). Instead, focus for a moment on the dollars that you are using to by gas. Our monetary policy in this country over the past three years has been to indiscriminately print dollars. Lots of them. WARNING: an economics lesson is forthcoming. When you create more of any good, the value of that good will generally decline. This has happened to our dollar. How bad is it? If we kept our dollar on the gold standard, which means that we simply back our dollars with gold, the price of gas- and food and other commodities- would be substantially lower. How much lower? If our dollar was backed with gold, gas would average approximately $1.36 a gallon for regular unleaded today, according to Bill O'Connell of All American Blogger. On a historical basis, using a dollar backed by gold, gasoline prices have risen, but not exorbitantly. What has happened to all of us is that we are being punished at the pump because of Washington printing more dollars and in turn cheapening their value. This is the direct effect of the inability of our leaders in Washington being unable to control their spending and printing more dollars to pay for that spending.

Marriage is a lot like a deck of cards: in the beginning all you need is two hearts and a diamond. After a few years, all you will want is a club and a spade.

The markets were roiled earlier this week by some very weak housing numbers. According to the Case Shiller Index of housing prices, home prices fell 1.9% in the first quarter of 2011. With this decline, housing prices in the United States have now cumulatively fallen more than they did during the Great Depression. During the Great Depression, home prices fell by 31%; currently home prices have fallen from their peak in 2007 by 33%. There are two scary aspects of this decline. First, it took 19 years for home prices to recover to pre-Great Depression levels. Many "experts" believe that the current decline in home prices will reverse relatively quickly. I do not. Widespread negative equity for many homeowners paired with a weak employment outlook will serve to constrain home prices. Second, prices may have more to fall before they eventually stabilize. There are numerous foreclosed properties that are currently not on the market. When this inventory hits the market, it will have the effect of holding down prices. Further, there are approximately 16 million homeowners that still occupy their homes that are "underwater", that is, they owe more than the home is worth. One has to expect some of those homes, perhaps a large number of them, will find their way back on the market via foreclosure or short sale. It would be reasonable to expect a further decline in home prices, which will weigh down the economy and delay a consistent and solid recovery.

When choosing a path in life, it is always wise to avoid the psychopaths.

There is no denying that our taxes are going up next year. The two year extension of the Bush tax cuts will expire at the end of this year, and Congress will be forced to raise taxes to pay for their profligate spending. How much will taxes rise? It is anyone's guess, but Democrats in Washington have proposed raising taxes on families that make more than $250,000 and individuals that make more than $200,000. They have also proposed phasing out certain deductions that we can now claim. If their proposal passes, the effective income tax on families and individuals that cross these thresholds will rise to 41.5%. But this is Washington, and our legislators are not going to stop there. Add in 3.4% in Medicare tax for "high income earners"- those that are above the aforementioned income levels. President Obama has proposed eliminating the income ceiling on Social Security taxes, currently capped at $106,800, which will add another 10.1% to the top tax rates. This will take the top federal income tax take to 58% of your income, and that is before any state or local taxes are assessed. Now it would be easy to say that these rates apply only to the top earners, but be assured that rising rates will affect all of us at all income levels, and the effect will be stunning and painful. If Washington does not change its ways- quickly- you and I will be paying dearly for their lack of fiscal discipline.

I would watch NASCAR if the drivers had as much to drink as the fans.

And that, my friends, is my view.