Neo

Here's where we each find our own path. The other wing of the bird (awesome, btw) isn't spectacular with "how" either. I believe that's because there is no centralized, programmatic "how". "How" is determined by 330 million people dozens and dozens of time each day. It's lumpy, uneven, unequal (thank heavens) and it works. It produces more, gives its people more, offers more opportunity, and raises standards of living. The other wing appeals to me because it at least pays lip service to this idea. The Right's heroes are free, unregulated capitalists when it speaks. It fails to govern that way with maddening frequency. See Drunkard's remarks of a week or so ago regarding Republicans and balanced budgets. The Left has the advantage in terms of character in that it skips the lip service all together. Before the strawmen arrive, remember I cede no moral high ground. Enlightened self interest isn't cruel, nasty or even greedy. It's efficient. Regarding who we pick. Again, to each his or her own path. I will choose those that give to the most the latitude and the freedom to try, succeed, and fail. In aggregate, that lifts the ship the highest.

Bernie is all that, in all sincerity from me.

I've connected with Bernie, because of this place, his charm, and his conviction. I just watched his MSNBC Morning Joe interview discussing initiatives and how they're paid for. He's bonkers, but I like him. I know, I know, I said bonkers. Allow me bonkers, for heaven's sake. "I am not a capitalist". "I will pay for free (yes, he said free) college education by taxing Wall Street speculators (you know, capitalists). It's the strangest thing I've heard of late. "My policies are better, so I'm going to use the success of their policies to pay for it". His source for his programs is the activity he rails against. What am I missing? My challenge to the Sanders crowd - can you pay for democratic socialism without capitalism? If yes, why doesn't Bernie source his funds there? If no, why change and shrink the pie? Simplistic blog statement - that question always intrigues me when I'm talking to my progressive friends. Where are you getting your money after you enlighten and convert your Neanderthal conservative opponents? Big business, Wall Street Speculators, the 1%, are together Senator Sanders' Colonel Jessup. Jessup wasn't an attractive character, but the writers gave him one great speech. Col. Jessep: "Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to." Deep Throat: "Follow the money". Insert hand that feeds you reference here. I look forward to more time tonight. TV interviews are limited, an acknowledgment I owe Bernie. This post is intended to change no minds. It is, humbly, an insight into mine and an invitation to an examination of the other side of the coin. May the best Dem emerge and on to the debate of ideas! Buckley was, and remains, a giant. For fun, Google Buckley, Saul Alinsky and YouTube. And, if you have two minutes more, The Godfather of political economics:

More than likely. Of interest to me: How the two parties compare in style. Will the D's position as far left at this stage as the R's are doing right? How the candidates interact. Will the D's press differences/attack by name to the same extent as the R's? HRC - as always, the whale. Bernie - a shiney new toy, for me. And, lastly, the Biden factor --- putting me in his shoes ... "can I enter and win? Is there a gap, a void?"

Tampa has many Bills and Steeler bars. Other fans assemble, but those two teams are common for large crowds. We have a lot of Green Bay and Patriot fans, too, but I've not seen them command whole bars, or whole sections, week to week. Fans of the Steelers and Bills do.

Future NHL trivia question .... Who "won" the 2015 NHL draft lottery? I know, I know .... three games. I understand that, but I "feel" the moment now.

OJ was cool, like global cool, like Muhammad Ali cool ... Wilt, Ali, Namath, Reggie, The Juice ...

Three games. I'm trying to find balance. NHL Network, two days in a row, is describing Eichels's goal vs. Columbus. "Remarkable, followed his shot, like basketball", "a football player throwing a bomb to himself", "beat nine guys to the puck", "Buffalo fans so loud". Balance ....

Sorry - I was referring to the bar your cousin visits in Tampa. O'Brien's in Brandon is jammed and loud. Woods - yes, outside of Tampa.

O'Brien's in Brandon?

Gotta say, I'm in this camp. I feel the same way about Toronto.

I'm seeing Reinhart and Domi at the WJCs.

His reach, his stick length. The goaltender squared to him, but still left so much net ... Seems to me?

To the learned: I have an observation that's neither praise nor criticism. Is my observation correct? Kane is a different cat. I am used to seeing five guys perform as a unit and I anticipate each as the game plays out. When Kane's on the ice, I see an uber talent creating by himself and four others positioning to be successful situationally as he creates. This isn't criticism! In fact, his singlemindedness is refreshing. Am I on to something? If so, do we encourage this and ride its uniqueness? Who does he compare to? While I'm not drawing any comparison, I had the same style feel when watching Ovechkin, especially early in Ovi's career.

Awesome ... I mean, not awesome, but you know what I mean ....

Manon Rheaume ....sigh ...

Cut and dried, indeed .... Grateful ... I'll google first, ask later, next time. (I still don't like it, limiting circumstances notwithstanding ... I can see a dozen hockey plays in the zone prior to clearing). Apologies to all for column inches.

I read his post differently. I heard "define when a scoring play starts". When does the scoring play originate during 4 minutes of skating without a whistle that includes 4 blue line crossings, a missed interference, one puck off a hand, and a goal? Do you review all 4 blue line crossings and potential missed penalties? Everything is a scoring play in hockey. Football starts and stops with each whistle. You can review the entire seven seconds in between (which drives me nuts). Football's discreet and hockey's analogue. I ask not knowing, and not to make a point - if a goaltender feeds a defenseman, who in turn feeds a forward, who in turn scores, do you review the trapezoid rule? If a blown icing call against team B (guilty, but not called) keeps the puck in play, allowing a forward on Team A to streak toward the net instead of meandering to his defensive zone for a face off, and team A scores, did the scoring play begin with the blown icing? Tell me when the scoring play begins. Arbitrary convention: go back 7 seconds? "My team got screwed but it took 8 seconds"! How does review fix anything? My humble reading of Andrew Amerk.

Clarity - my fault. I didn't mean to comment on how it does or doesn't make money when I referred to suits being paid. I should have used language like "we're really smart, lets tinker with things". I definitely believe delays for reviews turn more off. The majority of calls are correct. It remains the majority if you include the coach's challenge. My point is that the overall impact on the league (forget your team, or a particular call), is a wash over time with or without the tinkering. The cost is delays. I see cost with little or no benefit, in total. Regarding economics, all leagues seem profitable. You can argue that's despite over officiating, and not because of review. I suspect it comes down to choice. I'm comfortable watching an officiated game where most decisions are right and some are wrong. Add conclaves of confused guys in stripes, fans sitting on their hands, and the passage of time for some decision, and I'm less comfortable. Review goals, ball breaking the plane? Ok. This is what I like. It may not be right for all.

+2. I see suits sitting around saying "let's think of something, we make a lot of money". Thirty teams, playing 82 games, for sixty minutes each, will lead to mistakes. So will brushing your teeth. Over the long run, the mistakes, big and small, viewed at the league level, even out. Several small mistakes corrected by review, even out. The product is the same with or without the review except for one difference. That is, the path without the rule is hockey. The path with the rule has 20% of its games interrupted at critical minutes for a rules conference.

Regardless of outcome. What joy. It's an NHL team.

Still dumb. LOL

No effin' way a coach's challenge is a good idea for a league selling product. How do suits come up with this stuff?

Kane!!

McDavid just clenched.