As for the Wings, they’ve won their last eight games in a row… and that’s a significant accomplishment at any time in the season, let alone in the playoffs. A cause for worry, too, coz as the smart guys tell us: “You can’t win ‘em all.” Michael Rosenberg discusses this very subject in his column in today’s Freep. Excerpt:
Saturday night, after the Red Wings wrapped up their eighth straight playoff win, I asked Nick Lidstrom if he realized this couldn't go on forever. His answer was the verbal equivalent of a delay-of-game penalty. He obviously wasn't going to say the Wings could win the rest of their games, but he wasn't going to concede that they will lose, either.
Perfectly understandable. But the fact is that the Wings are not going to win another six in a row. That would be superhuman. As it is, their eight-game winning streak is their best playoff run since at least 1995, when they also won eight in a row (and lost in the Stanley Cup Finals to the New Jersey Trapping Devils).
Turbulence is coming. What matters is how the Wings handle it. Sometimes in sports, teams are so dominant that when they finally get knocked down, they can't remember how to get back up. (In need of evidence? Check out the New England Patriots, the 1991 UNLV basketball team, the 1996 Red Wings, etc.)
These Wings certainly seem different. Their greatness is not built on one overwhelming aspect of their game, like the Patriots' offense was. It is built on being a complete team. They played the final two periods Saturday with a one-goal lead and never hesitated.
Good points, all. Especially the last. The Wings dealt with some low-level adversity Saturday when they lost their hottest player, Johan Franzen, to “concussion-like” symptoms. Yet the Wings’ game remained superb and you certainly couldn’t tell they missed The Mule, even though I’m sure they did. Franzen will be out for tonight’s game, as well. I expect another close game, and it just might be a lil bit chippy…based on what happened at the end of Game Two.
That’s not all bad, Gentle Reader. The best hockey happens when the opponents hate each other’s guts.
In other hockey news… the Flyers are down 0-2 to the Pens, but that series has been a lot closer than the won-lost numbers indicate. Game Two could have gone either way, and the series could be tied, for all intents and purposes. The series probably would be tied, were it not for the Flyers’ bad luck with injuries… but that’s playoff hockey. Stuff happens. It’s been entertaining to watch these guys go at it, at the very least.
―:☺:―
Susan Estrich, one of my very favorite people-I-love-to-hate actively dislike, has an interesting article today at Real Clear Politics. Excerpt:
Could Obama be another Dukakis?
It isn't just die-hard
I was there. Mike Dukakis was (and is) a friend of mine. And so I can say that, while the danger is certainly worth recognizing, Barack Obama is no Mike Dukakis. Or at least he doesn't have to be.
There is no question that the Republicans will try to do to Obama what they did to Dukakis: paint him as a liberal, out of touch with the values of average (white) Americans, so far left that he has left
Isn’t it obvious, Sue? I mean really. There’s absolutely NO “painting” required here. Obama IS to the left of most Americans, he IS out of touch with the values of average Americans (nice play of the race card, BTW), and his ditzy wife…not to mention his spiritual and political mentors, but I will… are so far left they might could embarrass good ol’ Mr. Marx. That would be Karl, not Groucho. Or Harpo. Or any of the other Marx Bros, who were entertaining. Barack, OTOH, is simply irritating.
Don’t get me wrong… I respect Obama, and the man has certain gifts I wish the Republican candidate had. Those gifts…being personable, warm, and one of this country’s best orators… make him a formidable opponent. And a dangerous one, too. I don’t believe Senator McCain is taking Obama lightly, nor should he. But Obama has given McCain enough ammunition to allow McCain to prevail amongst thinking voters. It’s the “he’s just SO kewl!” voters and the Obama Girl clones we have to worry about. Nothing’s gonna get to them.
Coz it’s oh-so-very-hard to be kewl and smart at the same time. Or so Dad told me.
―:☺:―
Oh, Spare Me… Part Eleventy-Something. Blog-Bud Morgan goes on a great deal about this subject, and I hope I don’t cause him to burst a blood-vessel or something by posting this:
About six months after my son was born, he and I were sitting on a blanket in the park with a close friend and her daughter. It was a sunny summer weekend, and other parents and their children picnicked nearby. My friend and I, who, in fits of self-empowerment, had conceived our babies with donor sperm because we hadn’t met Mr Right, surveyed the idyllic scene.
“Ah, this is the dream,” I said, and we nodded in silence for a minute, then burst out laughing. In some ways, I meant it: we had both dreamt of motherhood, and here we were. But it was also decidedly not the dream. The dream, like that of our mothers and their mothers from time immemorial, was to fall in love, get married and live happily ever after. Of course, we’d be loath to admit it, but ask any soul-baring 40-year-old single heterosexual woman what she most longs for in life and she probably won’t tell you it’s a better career, a smaller waistline or a bigger apartment. Most likely, she will say that what she really wants is a husband (and, by extension, a child).
To the outside world, we still call ourselves feminists, and insist that we are independent, self-sufficient and don’t believe that damsel-in-distress stuff. In reality, however, we are women who want a traditional family. And, despite growing up in an era when the centuries-old mantra of getting married young was finally replaced by pursuit of high ideals (education, career, but also true love), every woman I know – no matter how successful and ambitious, how financially and emotionally secure – feels panic if she hits 30 and finds herself unmarried.
Oh, I know. I’m guessing there are single, 30-year-old women reading this right now who will write letters to the editor to say that I have no idea what I’m talking about. All I can say is, if you say you’re not worried, you’re either in denial or lying.
That’s just the first four grafs. It gets worse… or better, depending on your point of view. What we have here, basically, is yet another article telling women to “settle.” Don’t wait for Mr. Right, grab Mr. Nearly-Right and get on with it, in other words. Or: a recipe for disaster in most cases, especially where American women are concerned. Forgive me, but it’s my opinion that most women are never quite satisfied…there’s always “room for improvement” where Hubby is concerned, to put it kindly and mildly. As I said: this is my opinion, you’re free to have yours. And I’m sure you do.
But, back to the Times article. This is Really Bad Advice. Don’t settle…never settle. Still and even, the article is a good read, if only to gain insight into the mind of the 21st Century Liberated Woman, Brit-style.
If you need that sort of thing.
(Image by Ariel Bordeaux, the creator of the comic 'Deep Girl' as well as the book 'No Love Lost' (1997), published by Drawn & Quarterly.)
Hi Buck... I'm thinking the Wings might just do it... six in a row... they've got the momentum...I think it would be awesome to watch it happen! (The Patriots broke my heart but not my faith!) I used to watch the Wings when I lived in Toledo... great team. (I hated them... when they played the Bruins of course). On another note; I can remember my mother complaining about Dukakis years ago. They call it Taxachussetts because of him, don't cha know? Interesting that they are comparing Obama to him.
ReplyDeleteAs a single mom, I'm not looking to get hitched to anyone. I can pull my own wagon. If you wanna go for a ride? Bring your own horses! Thanks for the chuckles on the night shift!
I can remember voting for Dukakis, but I can't remeber why - young and stupid, I guess.
ReplyDeleteMy grandmother had a saying: When you walk through the forest, you have to pick a walking stick. It is better to pick a straight stick early on rather than getting to the end of the forest and having to take what you can get.
Most of today's young women are taught to concentrate on education and career. Few are taught what love is much less how to love someone. Later it is difficult to change gears form career to husband and family.
Buck, I am seeing RED and it should be ORANGE!!! I am a Flyer fan and they are doing their best to choke on this series with the Penn's. I won't blame the Zebra's and the bad calls (cause it does go both ways) or the bad penalties but let me tell you those Penn's do have some mighty fine weapons!!! Just when you have number 87 covered you have to worry about 71 but then comes a couple of thoes Second and Third line guys and wham there you are loosing the game.
ReplyDeleteGood on Detroit for going 3-0 on Dallas. As a Native from NM I am anything but a fan of anything from Texas (save the cheerleaders that is). I am hoping the best for the Flyers and will be pulling from my basement studio!!!
Have a good one or two today. Jimmy T
No, a girls shouldn't settle, nor should a man. But once you decide on someone and marry it's a matter of CHOOSING to be content with your choice.
ReplyDeleteWow...so much to say and...well, so much to say...
ReplyDeleteSunday a couple friends and i were deliberating VP choices for the all the particular "last one standings". Here's what we came up with...well, except for McCain...whom we HOPE chooses extremely well.
Obama: could do worse than to choose Her Hillaryness, who would then in turn (in no uncertain terms nor qualms) would have him assassinated and gain the great white throne herself. I just despise the fact that since that event looms ever possible (by her hand or no) that would give "them" a martyr, and that sickens me to no end.
Hillorvalley: Wouldn't it be interesting if she chose her esteemed husband? There's nothing unconstitutional about that...and then what happens if the same scenario previously mentioned happened to her (presumably by his hand)? Interesting, no? Of course, the darker side of these comments are completely tongue in cheek...those being the choices themselves.
"old mantra of getting married young was finally replaced by pursuit of high ideals"
Strange...i'm pretty young by the "old mantra" standards...but from what i've gathered of the paradigm (and i think i have a pretty firm grasp), i don't recall 'high ideals' being left out...in fact, they were given an extremely elevated position.
It just seems IMO, that the "modern woman" has swallowed the same old lie that Eve ingested in the Garden i.e. "...you'll know good and evil..." well shoot, they already knew GOOD! In fact, that's ALL they knew! So that crafty serpent was only promising them eeeevil...and wasn't that a slick line? And look where that got us! Adam...you dolt!
The Queen was watching this show on Discovery the other day about problemed pregancies. One of the couples was lesbian...i gotta tellya at this point...it made me literally so sick, i had to get up and do some yardwork. That kid has absolutely no chance at normalcy. I can't imagine the life that child will have. Uncle Buck...i'm REALLY struggling at this point to be polite... if one chooses to...screw up... their life in that type of relationship...why in the...would you choose to...screw up... a child's too? Oh i know, its a different part same lie swallowed, it just pisses me off...
Pardon the soapbox...i'll step down and go home now.
Fire Fox: I love your attitude on your last (Bring your own horses)! I think your Mom knew more about Dukakis than most Americans, but I also think most Americans don't care that much about politics, to begin with. And those WINGS! I was just blown away last night... While winning five more games without a loss is pretty improbable, it AIN'T impossible!
ReplyDeleteLou: Your father might have had something to do with your vote for Little D, right? And your grandmother was certainly wise. I've seen women friends make the transition from being completely focused on career to career/marriage around age 30, and it's worked for the folks I know... so far. Anecdotal, to be sure.
Jimmy T: I sympathize with ya about how difficult it is to shut down the Pens, Bud! The Wings' opponents have to feel the same way: so many offensive weapons, so few star defensemen! I'll be watching tonite, and since I have no dog in this fight I'll root for the Flyers...coz of you and Pat.
Diva: Agreed, especially about MEN not settling! That's been a recurring theme here, over the years... ;-)
Jay: Wow! So much to respond to! (And I'm more than OK with this...)
First off, I thought about the Hillary Veep assassination theme, too. I'm not a card-carrying member of the VRWC, but it's fun to think (and laugh) about. I don't think Barack would choose Her Hillaryness, though.
I disagree on your "not unconstitutional" argument about Big Dog. He cannot run for Veep, simply because he's BEEN president, and would be barred from serving as president if Hillary died or was incapacitated. She wouldn't choose him, anyway... too much baggage.
Re: lesbian couples as parents. I have serious mixed emotions here, and I suppose the key word is "emotions." It's hard to remain objective when one's core values are offended.
On the one hand: there are all the classic arguments about role models, "values," and such when it comes to raising kids. I put values in scare quotes coz values tend to take different paths once you get beyond The Golden Rule. I've always been a "live and let live" sort, unless and until laws are broken.
OTOH, there are many lesbian couples that are successfully raising children right now. On that same hand, I know several lesbians...one of which is a very good friend... who would make fine Moms, as far as I'm concerned. But then again, none of the lesbians I know have expressed an interest in raising a family... to me, anyway. This is a sticky wicket at the VERY best.
Indeed, never settle - male or female. Your soulmate is out there, somewhere. Whether you find him or her is problematic, but you're better off NOT finding than settling.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I wish my Celtics were cruising along like your Wings. They're blowing people away at home, and then they look absolutely horrible on the road. Luckily, they have the home court advantage all the way through, but it still doesn't augur well.
hmmm i didn't know about the unconsititutionality of the The Bill...i was taking it on the knowledge of a couple attorney types...alotta good THEY are! just kidding, they are both VERY good friends, and we were just politico-joking anyway.
ReplyDeleteGood discussion on the subject here, Jay. It turns out there's significant disagreement on the question among constitutional law types. As for me, I was going with the wording of the 12th Amendment, which says:
ReplyDelete"no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President."
But if you follow the link you'll see there's more to it than that.
I didn't read the entire article, so I'll be pretty limited on what I can say. First off, I must agree that deep down inside, even the most liberated (provided she is emotionally healthy) woman still longs for a husband and family. That's the way we are made. Not only that, children need a father figure in their lives. Not a weekend dad, mind you, but someone who is there --in the home-- for them each and every day. I realize that some of you dads don't have much choice in that. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about single women who would get themselves AIed--or knocked up just to have a baby. It's a very selfish thing they are doing and it's not in the best interest of the children.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I can pull my own wagon, too. I've done it since my son was born. But don't think for a minute I've overlooked the devastating effects of fatherlessness in his life. Don't think for a minute I don't know what it's done to him. I've heard him crying himself to sleep at night. I've heard him pray, begging God to bring him a daddy. I've seen how left out he feels in Cub Scouts, on the ball field, at father/son events.
But as for settling, I think you know by now what my views on that subject are. Never settle. You deserve the best. But then, so do your children.
Based on my observations...many of those who marry with great expectations become more disillusioned with each passing year.
ReplyDeleteI'm finding it really tough to argue with that, it's been my observation as well.
At the same time, as a dude who was once on the market a few years ago, I'd really have hated to have a woman "settle" on me after torturing herself for any length of time on such a decision. Sounds like a divorce in the making fer sure.
Becky: That's very well-said. I appreciate all the points you've made, most of all about the impact of the lack of a man in the house on Cody.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I DO know and appreciate your outlook on settling. It's my opinion you're doing the right thing by both yourself, and by extension, Cody, too.
Morgan: Your post on this subject was excellent.
And while it's beside the point (or not)... My last GF was of a mind that settling was perfectly OK, and said as much to me when we finally had the discussion about why I left. I found that extremely off-putting for a number of reasons, the biggest of which was "Oh, so I'm second or third best, eh?" Fragile male ego, and all that. But it is what it is.
I won't settle. Period. Which is why I'll probably die alone. But there are worse things in life (or death).