Better Late...Yet Again

So. Last Friday I said the Stars would have to get better than they were in Game One of the conference finals or the Wings would register another sweep in these playoffs. The Stars did get better…much better, in fact… in Saturday evening’s 2-1 loss to the Wings. Yet still, the Stars are down 0-2 in this series, and while that’s not exactly an insurmountable obstacle, it’s pretty bad. But Dallas played with a lot more fire Saturday, if not discipline and concentration. Tonight’s game will be very interesting… assuming the ice is in decent shape, which is doubtful…given the temps in Dallas today. But the ice will be bad for both teams…that’s the way it goes. I’m expecting at least one fluky goal, if not more.

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 Clinton supporters who are pointing out the similarities. Even some Obama backers who believe that the nomination fight is over see the possible parallels, and are determined to avoid them, or at least try.

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 America.

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 21^st 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.)