A few trades

Dustin Penner is the newest member of the Los Angeles Kings. The Kings, who are fifth in the Western Conference standings with 74 points, are my pick for biggest acquisition. Penner is a legitimate goal scorer with 32 this season and 105 in 343 NHL games.

This was the biggest deal on a rare slow last day for the NHL trade deadline. The Kings are 8 points behind the division-leading Sharks and are ready to make a push. Los Angeles gave up prospect Colton Teubert and draft picks in 2011 and 2012.

The Devils parted ways with Jason Arnott, who went to the Capitals for David Steckel. Steckel is the No. 1 enemy around Pittsburgh for being primarly responsible for Sidney Crosby's absence in the Penguins' lineup. He will fit right in with New Jersey.

I don't think the deal helps the Capitals too much. They need some good blue liners if they want to take that next step.

Pittsburgh didn't do anything, which is fine. I like the additions of Neal, Niskanen and Kovalev.

NHL Trade Deadline Update

Been a quiet morning for the NHL trade deadline day. Reports are that the General Managers who hold the rental players are asking way too much in return. I expect at least a few of those bottom dwelling teams blink and start dealing guys off in the afternoon. Biggest deal so far: Niclos Bergfors from the Atlanta Thrashers to the Florida Panthers for Radek Dvorak. Atlanta gave up too much there, imo. They got Bergfors as a center-piece to the deal for Ilya Kovalchuck with the New Jersey Devils last year and he has shown goal scoring promise. I don't see why they would give up on that potential they so coveted last year for a short term fill in, which is all Dvorak brings them. There is a reason this is a franchise yet to win a playoff game.
Biggest deal that WON'T happen: Brad Richards of the Dallas Stars to the New York Rangers for a king's ransom. Start with the Rangers 1st round pick, add in two of their young performing roster guys, and you may have a deal, but I don't think even Glenn Sather would gove up that much for the UFA to be. Then again... Its Sather.

Update on Arab Revolutions

Obama calls on Gaddafi to step down in Libya, okays use of sanctions. It is obvious that any moral standing Gaddafi had is long gone, but will sanctions and harsh rhetoric really accomplish anything? At what point do his actions against his own people warrent direct action by the UN Security Council? Ideally, Obama can get desired results without using force in this growing North Africa/Mid-East unrest. Saudi Arabia will remain the tipping point however, I believe. If there is an uprising in the heart of the Arab Kingdom like we have seen elsewhere in that part of the world, it will no longer be a tenable choice for the rest of the world to sit on the sidelines.

The Supreme Court of the United States (Part 2)

If you look back at part 1 of this series on The Court, all I put up at first was article III of the U.S. Constitution. I did that because those few paragraphs set up the framework for the entire Federal Judicial system. If you look back on that rather brief and unassuming section of our country's founding document, you will notice that it is quite remarkable for what is missing from its instructions, as it is for what it lays out. There is no mention of the number of Justices that are to sit on the Court or what their qualifications are to be, nothing about how many cases they are to take on or how they are to come to their decisions. Most striking by its absence however is explicit authority for what has come to be known as THE most important function of the Court: its jurisdiction to review laws and determine whether they are or are not within the bounds of the Constitution.
This act of Judicial Review is absolutely vital to our concept of a system of "checks and balances" upon our Federal Government. And although it is implied and interpreted from the Supremacy clause in Article IV, it is not an explicit power granted unto the Court in Article III. Why is this seemingly crucial doctrine not included within the bedrock of the Federal Courts? The answer, I believe, lies within chasm that seperates our idealized national narrative of how our Country was formed and the practical realities and constraints of the "living and breathing" times that those who laid down the foundations for our Nation lived within.
There is a deep rooted mythology within the American pysche in regards to our Founding Fathers. They are our secular saints; a group of rag-tag rightously pious patriots who, uniquely in the annals of history, cast off the iron clad shackles of tyranny and unbearably cruel and intolerable oppression; to immediatley grant unto their Continent, and the World at large, a fully functional and perfected Union, that would unquestionably become the Shining Beacon on the Hill and lead the world into a new age of peace and prosperity. What is amazing is that worship and deitization of these founders, rather then being marginalized and reduced over the years, only seems to grow more polished and refined within each passing generation. It would be a grave misstatement to say that Americans do not know Their history. The emphasis must be placed however must be placed on the Their, not the 'history.' As explained in James Loewon's groundbreaking book "Lies My Teacher Told Me," the American history that is disseminated through our textbooks and schools is a white-washed melodrama of enduring progress meant to indoctrinate this secular mythology, not to raise levels of critical thinking or encourage civic engagement.
How does this mass misreading of history affect our concept of Judicial Review? It is because the Founding Fathers were not a monolithic rightous entity that this radical concept was not included directly within our Constitution. Although 5 of the 13 States had some form of Judicial Review or Veto within their State Constitutions in 1787, this was still a controversial idea at the time. It was not included for reasons having to do with political compromise of the times to ensure that all States ratified the novel Federal document. So we can see that even at the very foundations of our country's laws, there is an element of give and take between individual liberty, States rights, and Federal Powers.


Stay tuned for my next Supreme Court entry where I explore the way the Court obtained the power of review and its use of such power in the absolute worst decision in its History.

Goal celebration songs

I don't know too many names of the songs, but here are some of my likes and dislikes for what arenas play when NHL teams score plus a few suggestions.

I really enjoy the Rangers' song. I don't know if it is by a band or what, but I like it. I like the Flyers, too. I know, both are Atlantic Division rivals with the Penguins, but I can't help it. They're catchy.

The Penguins were fixated on Rock 'n' Roll Part 2 but, have scrapped it since moving into the Consol Energy Center, isn't it ironic that the Consol Energy Center has lighting issues? Anyways, I have been hearing Blur's Song 2 when they score. Yeah, I didn't know the name for a while, either, but it's the one that repeats, "Woo-Hoo" over and over. It fits for a goal celebration song.

The Canadiens play Vertigo, and it doesn't fit at all. I don't mind the song, but it doesn't work for me when it comes to a team scoring. I despise that Chelsea Dagger song they play in Chicago. I like the Blackhawks, but what a bad song. Being that they have been a great team for a while, I am tortured to hear it when I watch Chicago play.

I really like Rise Against's "Help is on the way." Maybe it is in use somewhere, but I like it and the band seems to be popular at NHL arenas. Killswitch Engage's "This fire burns" is really cool and it is a good song that could be played when a tie scores late in the third period with the goalie pulled.