John McCain's health care disaster

John McCain rolled out his health care plan yesterday. For the tens of millions of Americans who currently receive their benefits through their employers, it promises to be a total disaster, as the average family’s premiums will more than double. From the New York Times:

Mr. McCain’s health care plan would shift the emphasis from insurance provided by employers to insurance bought by individuals, to foster competition and drive down prices. To do so he is calling for eliminating the tax breaks that currently encourage employers to provide health insurance for their workers, and replacing them with $5,000 tax credits for families to buy their own insurance....

Democrats and some experts said the proposal might lead some employers to stop offering health insurance, and questioned whether the tax credit would cover the cost of private insurance.

There is no “might” about it, the proposal will cause many employers to drop health care insurance altogether or significantly roll back their offerings. The tax break that employers get is the most significant incentive for them to offer insurance to their employees. Without it, the only incentives to an employer are intangible. For instance, more competitive benefits help attract better workers, and healthier employees are more productive. But how many companies will continue to shell out $7,000-8,000 per family per year for coverage if they are not able to deduct those costs? Probably not that many.

Based on the most recent statistics, the tax credit will not nearly cover the cost of private insurance. According to the National Coalition on Health Care, the total cost of the average family health insurance plan is $12,100. Of that the average family pays $3,300 in premiums with the rest covered by the employer. Under McCain’s plan, that average family would receive a $5,000 tax credit to offset the cost of the plan, leaving the family to cover the remaining $7,100 in premiums.

The average family who pays $275 per month for health insurance would see their premiums rise to $592 per month under McCain’s plan, a 115% increase.

(I am very lucky that I have an employer that offers a better than average plan and asks me to pay less than the average. Applying McCain’s proposal to my situation, if my employer decided it would be cheaper for them to drop employer-sponsored coverage, my monthly cost for the same plan that I am in now would more than triple from $225 per month to $750 per month.)

McCain suggests that his plan will “foster competition and drive down prices,” but the retail price of the average plan would have to drop from $12,100 per year to $8,300 in order for the average family to see no premium increase. In an era where medical premiums have nearly doubled in the last seven years, can anyone rationally expect that health insurance costs will drop 31% as a result of McCain’s plan? No.

While the promise of a $5,000 tax credit will sound like a great plan to many voters, it is nothing more than another device to shift the cost away from corporations and onto the backs of the working and middle-class. The McCain plan is a loser for ordinary Americans.

Tags: Election 2008 Republican health care John McCain

Might the Wekepeke restriction have teeth after all?

A couple of weeks ago, I questioned the terms of the proposed Wekepeke conservation restriction being negotiated between Clinton and the state and wondered why the Board of Selectmen would be holding their deliberations in secret. According to today’s Telegram and Gazette, the doors will be opened on May 7:

CLINTON— It’s a dilemma that has dogged officials here for months: Should a conservation restriction be placed on the Clinton-owned Wekepeke reservation in Sterling so Clinton can get a $353,600 state grant to help lower a $2.7 million debt exclusion approved last year for the Rauscher Farm property in Clinton?

In a special meeting yesterday morning, the selectmen decided to air the question to the public at the May 7 selectmen’s meeting.

Because the discussions have been held in secret (dubiously, in my opinion), information about the Wekepeke restriction has been hard to come by, but a couple of little nuggets in today’s piece suggest that the state may be trying to put some real teeth into the restriction.. First, from Selectman Kevin Haley:

“Things have changed,” Mr. Haley said. “If we can’t even use that property, it could be a burden to the town with upkeep year after year. We need to find out exactly what it can be used for. And at this point, do you want to tie your hands even more with a conservation restriction?”

Haley appears to be worried that those of us in Sterling with too much time on our hands might actually have been right when we argued that a Nestle-style proposal would not have been a permitted use in the first place. But then he adds that the restriction would “tie [Clinton’s] hands even more.”

What would be more restrictive than not being able to use the water for commercial purposes? Not being able to build out the land at all? Not even being able to develop the land for a golf course or other commercial recreational development? Could the state be pressuring Clinton to preserve the parcel for open space? It looks like that might be the case. Donald A. Lowe, director of the Clinton Community and Economic Development Office, provides another hint:

“It seems like there is little the town can get out of [the Wekepeke] rather than open space.”

Which was the whole point of the conservation restriction when it was first proposed in 2001: to protect the Wekepeke as open space. The question facing Clinton is whether or not it is worth it for Clinton to protect open space in Sterling so that it can pay to acquire and preserve open space in Clinton.

The selectmen should approve the restriction and signal their support for preserving open space wherever it lies.

Previous coverage of the Wekepeke:
April 25: What would Sterling accept at the Wekepeke?
April 11: What does the Wekepeke Restriction actually say?
April 11: Clinton does the right thing
April 9: Sterling should offer to buy Wekepeke at Nestle's price
April 6: Sterling selectmen to oppose Wekepeke plan, but to what extent?
April 4: Vermont looking to restrict Wekepeke-style projects
March 27: This can't be helpful
March 25: Tough decision ahead for Clinton
March 21: Nestle's proposal could change everything
March 21: Nestle nominated for "Corporate Hall of Shame"
March 19: Sterling Selectmen disappoint at Wekepeke forum
March 16: Sterling should oppose Nestle...the right way

Tags: Massachusetts Clinton Sterling Nestle Wekepeke

40 Days and 40 Nights

I've decided that one of the postive outcomes of the biblical flood was that it would have rid the world of a particuarly bad allergy season. If Noah told me that it was going to rain from now until June 6, I think I'd be OK with that. Sure, the earth may end up under water, but at least my eyes wouldn't itch.

Perhaps the next Noah could negotiate for 40 days and 40 nights of light drizzle. Keep my house above water and my eyes clear. I think that would be the best solution.

Woo-frickin-hoo

I just couldn't be more thrilled about the latest offer from the Red Sox:

The Sox announced they're holding Central Massachusetts Day at Fenway Park on May 18, when they face the Milwaukee Brewers in interleague play.

Tickets for Central Massachusetts Day at Fenway Park will soon be available for purchase by residents of Central Massachusetts. Since there are a limited number of tickets available, applicants must fill out and submit a registration form to participate in this opportunity to purchase.

I wonder what special events they'll have at the park. Perhaps a rocket flyover in memory of Robert Goddard. Maybe a Polar Bear mascot will frolic with Wally. Better yet, how about installing pink flamingos along the bullpen walls.

Honestly, it's not like we rubes out here don't get a chance to buy tickets like everyone else. Last I checked we have phones and the Internet. Just because I can see cows out my front window doesn't make me part of some sort of special class who needs help getting tickets.

If you're from around here and want to sign up for a lifetime of Spam trying to get you to join Red Sox nation chance to win tickets, go to the Red Sox site.

Tags: Boston Red Sox Massachusetts

What would Sterling accept at the Wekepeke?

In an editorial in yesterday's edition, the Times & Courier muses about possible uses at the Wekepeke and whether or not any use other than the status quo would be acceptable to Sterling. An excerpt:

Following closely on the heels of the unanimous vote to reject Nestlé was a unanimous vote to clarify the town’s legal control over the 564 acres and the waters they contain. Some possibilities: using the reservoirs for Clinton. Selling water to some other town. Breaching the dams. Selling house lots.

Some of these proposals would elicit vehement opposition in Sterling, for the same reasons the Nestlé deal did. Many Sterlingites would like to see the Wekepeke remain as it’s been for years: an unused water supply, protected from development and available for passive recreation.

Let's take the last point first. Sterlingites would like to see the status quo; it is the best deal for the town and its people. Clinton has to upkeep the land, repair the dams, and for the last 44 years has left the water in the Wekepeke reservoirs untouched as they have been taking water from the Wachusett. What's not to love about that set up?

But keeping the status quo isn't realistic, since Clinton doesn't have the money to repair the dams as mandated by law. Perhaps Representative Naughton will be successful in this year's attempt to secure state funding for the repairs, but it seems like a long shot considering the state's economic situation. (One could argue that if Clinton had been taking care of the dams on a regular basis over the last 44 years this wouldn't be an issue, but that's water over the dam, if you'll pardon the terrible pun). So let's look at the options mentioned in the Times & Courier and try to determine how Sterlingites would respond:

Using the reservoirs for Clinton. This was the original use of the reservoirs going back to the late 1800s. If Clinton were to begin drawing surface water again to supplement the water they take from the Wachusett, they would certainly be within their rights to do so. A daily draw of hundreds of thousands of gallons would lower the levels of the reservoirs, and I would expect that Clinton would restrict some uses (pets, boating, swimming or wading) to protect the purity of the water supply, but no Sterlinigte would have grounds to oppose that usage.

Selling water to some other town. While some in Sterling might balk at the idea (the original 19th century laws refer to the water being for "Clinton and its inhabitants"), there is a long history in the state of intermunicipal water agreements. Leominster Mayor Dean Mazzarella would love to have the Wekepeke as a back-up water supply. There is something nearly perfect about Leominster contracting with Clinton to take water out of Sterling, since it jives perfectly with Mazzarella's trend of disrespecting and disregarding Leominster's neighbors for Leominster's benefit. Even so, the impact would be no different than if Clinton used the water for itself, and such a proposal shouldn't be seriously opposed by Sterling.

Breaching the dams. This proposal would be controversial, but in the end I don't know how much opposition it would generate in Sterling. On the one hand, it would dramatically change the landscape. The reservoirs would be gone, it would take years for the land that was revealed to regenerate, and there would likely be significant costs associated with both the breach of the dams and the subsequent clean-up: there is probably 120 years of assorted debris and trash at the bottom of the reservoirs that would be exposed and need to be removed. And the town of Lancaster might have major issues with this proposal since the Wekepeke's only choke point would be at the Bartlett Pond at the bottom of Ballard Hill. The pond floods Route 117 once or so each spring as it is even with some semblance of flood control upstream with the current dam system. I wonder how often that route would be closed if all of the water from the brook backed up at Bartlett Pond every time it rained.

On the other hand, breaching the dams and returning the Wekepeke Brook to it's early-19th century flow would be the closest thing to true conservation imaginable. Environmental and conservation groups across the country have been advocating for the removal of dams and the restoration of waterways to their original flow. At the Selectmen's forum in Sterling last month, a representative of the Nashua River Watershed Association mentioned the removal of the dams as a possible solution they would support. This solution would call the bluff of any Sterlingite who opposed the Nestle project on environmental grounds (pollution, noise, plastic bottles, etc.). What could be more environmentally pure than this?

Selling house lots. Of the proposals, this is the only one that would (or should) elicit "vehement opposition in Sterling." It is also the possibility that is the most remote. In the end, I don't think Clinton would have the right to sell the land for development under state law, since it was allowed to purchase the land for a specific use and development wasn't it. Also, the possibility of developing the land may be off the table shortly if Clinton finally enacts a Conservation Restriction (not that anyone knows what might be in it). Further, it's not clear how much of the land is developable: Sterling does not have town sewer and much of it may be too wet for septic. And breaching the dams in an effort to build house lots (an idea I find absurd, but the Times & Courier included in its online poll, so someone must think it's viable) might be problematic, since wetlands usually have to be replaced if they are drained for development. Would Clinton just flood a different part of the land?

Ultimately, I would like to see the towns work together to preserve the land for recreation, either by finding a way to repair and maintain the dams or by returning the area to its natural state. That would cost Sterling some money, but it would be worth it. Further, I would like to see us work together to improve the land for recreation. Blaze some hiking trails, make it easier to drop a canoe or kayak in the water, maybe clear a spot for a few picnic tables...turn it into a municipal park and invite everyone to come. Let the Parks and Rec Commissions of both towns jointly maintain the area.

I've heard and read some comments that Clintonians don't get any benefit from the land because they don't use it. Well by all means, come on up. Bring your families to hike and explore. We want Clintoninans to visit us. How do you think Sterling can support three ice cream stands and mini golf and a petting farm and multiple pick-your-own orchards among other businesses? Because Clinton doesn't have any of those things so Clintonians come to Sterling to buy ice cream and play putt-putt. Believe me, it's in our interest to have Clintonians use the Wekepeke for recreation and stop at the Sterling Ice Cream Bar or Rota Spring on the way home to cool off with a frappe or a float.

Wouldn't it be nice to see the towns come to an agreement on preserving the Wekepeke? Sterling Selectman Sheppard and Clinton Selectman Pasquale could stand together, cut the ribbon to the Wekepeke Peace Park, then lock arms and lead the crowd in a stirring rendition of "Friends are Friends Forever" as happy families take to the reservation to hike it's trails and relax in it's shade?

Whoa, the heat must be getting to me. I think I'm the one who needs to get to Rota Spring to cool off...

Previous coverage of the Wekepeke:
April 11: What does the Wekepeke Restriction actually say?
April 11: Clinton does the right thing
April 9: Sterling should offer to buy Wekepeke at Nestle's price
April 6: Sterling selectmen to oppose Wekepeke plan, but to what extent?
April 4: Vermont looking to restrict Wekepeke-style projects
March 27: This can't be helpful
March 25: Tough decision ahead for Clinton
March 21: Nestle's proposal could change everything
March 21: Nestle nominated for "Corporate Hall of Shame"
March 19: Sterling Selectmen disappoint at Wekepeke forum
March 16: Sterling should oppose Nestle...the right way

Tags: Massachusetts Clinton Sterling Nestle Wekepeke

Earmarks, lots and lots of earmarks

1,512 to be exact. That is how many amendments to the fiscal year 2009 budget were filed by members of the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Nearly all of them are proposed increases to the budget for local projects.

Of the two legislators representing the town of Sterling, only Democrat Harold Naughton filed amendments; he filed 15 (see amendments 710-724). Republican Lewis Evangelidis did not file any amendments to the FY09 budget (or at least he isn't the primary sponsor of any amendments. A Google search only pulled up one amendment to which he is a co-sponsor. I wonder if anyone in the local press will ask him why he decided to stand on the sidelines this year).

Two of Naughton's earmarks would have a direct effect in Sterling. The biggest of the two could go a long way in settling the Wekepeke question. Amendment 716:

Mr. Naughton of Clinton moves to amend the bill in Section 2, item 2810-0700, by adding at the end thereof the following: “provided further that not less than $1,000,000 be provided for the repair of dams located at the Wekepeke Reservoir in the town of Sterling.”

Now, Naughton filed essentially the same amendment last year and it was not included in the final budget. I wonder if it has any chance at all of being included this year's budget, considering the deteriorating economic climate. But if it were to make the final budget it would remove a significant part of Clinton's incentive to develop the Wekepeke. Current estimates suggest that it will cost Clinton between $1 million and $1.5 million to meet their legal obligation to shore up the dams. If most or all of that money came from the state, Clinton wouldn't need to sell the water from the Wekepeke in order to fund repairs.

The other earmark would provide a grant for a community park in Sterling. Amendment 724:

Mr. Naughton of Clinton moves that bill be amended in item 2000 – 0100 by adding at the end thereof the following "Provided further that not less than $50,000 shall be expended for the expansion of Muddy Pond Park in the town of Sterling for the purpose of open space..."

Work on the project has already begun, but organizers are still raising money in an effort to secure the $250,000 estimated. A state grant of $50,000 would go a long way to helping Sterling realize it's goal.

If you feel strongly that either of these two amendments (or any of the other 1,150 amendments) should be included in the final budget, contact your state representative or the members of the Ways and Means Committee. Both Naughton and Evangelidis are members of the Ways and Means, so if you live in Sterling registering your opinion with your rep will also get your voice heard in the Ways and Means.

Tags: Massachusetts Clinton Sterling Budget Wekepeke Harold Naughton Lewis Evangelidis

"Tastes like Z"

I was giving Jackson a bath last night and while he was playing with some foam letters in the tub, he picked up the letter "Z" and put it in his mouth and started to chew on it. I looked at him and shook my head (I've told him before that he shouldn't be putting his bath toys in his mouth). He looked at me, smiled, and said:

"Tastes like Z."

If that's not the funniest thing...

Oh, and we now have two dogs. Anyway, here are a handful of pictures from the weekend.

Summer checking out the camera.


Jackson giving Summer hugs.


Jackson with Summer and Rosie.


Dressed up for church.


A handsome little man.

Charlie Gibson: Don’t know much about history

Last night, while hosting what is being widely criticized as the worst-moderated of the dozens of debates in this cycle, ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson asked what might just be the stupidest, most ill-informed, must-have-gotten-an-F-in-high-school-civics question imaginable. In an attempt to play gotcha with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as they each declined to name the other vice president should they win, Gibson followed up with this:

Just to quote from the Constitution again, "In every case" -- Article II, Section 1 -- "after the choice of the president, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the vice president."

If it was good enough in colonial times, why not in these times?

The question is so bad on so many fronts; it’s hard to know what he was thinking.

The qissue was whether or not the nominee would choose the other candidate to be their running mate. But the section of the Constitution that Gibson quotes refers to speaks about the general election. “After the choice of the president, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors” would be the loser of the general election. Applying that section of the Constitution to the current election would mean that John McCain would be the vice president of a Democratic president. It would have nothing to do with selecting a VP during the nomination process.

Further, it “wasn’t good enough in local times.” The elections of 1796 and 1800 were so divisive that they nearly brought the government down, as the vice president was essentially the president’s fiercest opponent. It was bad enough that the process was scrapped with the ratification of the 12th amendment in 1804. In other words, Gibson was quoting a section of the Constitution that was repealed 204 years ago.

“Why not in these times?” Is Gibson proposing to repeal the 12th Amendment and go back to the original design of the Constitution? Or is he proposing that the political parties should follow the same design? That might at least be entertaining. Could you have seen John McCain as George Bush’s running mate in 2000, after the way Bush and his machine just eviscerated McCain in South Carolina? Or going back to 1980, could you envision Ted Kennedy as Jimmy Carter’s running mate as brutal as that campaign was?

And on a semantic note, nothing that happened when the Constitution was written in 1789 “was good enough in colonial times” since the United States hadn’t been colonies of Britain since July 4, 1776, in case Gibson forgot (and I can’t believe that he did, since he and co-moderator George Stephanopoulos spent plenty of time asking about the patriotism of Barack Obama and his acquaintances).

If you didn’t watch the debate, you might get the impression that Gibson was just following up off the cuff. If that were the case, then one might be able to argue that he just mangled the history a little in his mind. But those of us who watched the debate know that Gibson planned to use this line of questioning all along, because they flashed a graphic with this quote on the screen as he spoke. So the only conclusion is that Gibson either intentionally quoted a section of the constitution that had been repealed over two centuries ago in an effort to take it out of context, or he didn’t realize that the clause he used as the basis for his question was no longer operable. Either way, it was shameful.

What was also shameful was the fact that neither candidate either had the quickness on their feet or the intestinal fortitude to call Gibson on his outrageous premise. The follow-up went first to Clinton. Her best answer would have been something like “Do you realize that what you are suggesting would mean that John McCain would be my vice president? I don’t think it was ‘good enough’ for our forefathers, since the repealed it almost as soon as they enacted it 200 years ago.” Or something like that.

Not to mention that Obama is a constitutional law scholar. I’d have expected that he would be jumping out of his suit to rebut the absurd premise of the question. I realize that standing on stage in front of 11 million people probably puts enough strain in the mind, but he is supposed to know that stuff inside and out. I nearly fell out of my chair when I heard the question, and all I have is a pedestrian bachelor’s degree in history.

At least it appears that this will end up being the last debate of the primary season. The next one we hear will be between Obama and McCain sometime in October, with the less-historically-challenged Jim Lehrer most likely in charge. What a breath of fresh air that will be.

Tags: Election 2008 Democratic Primary Barack Obama Hillary Clinton Charles Gibson ABC News

Nothing new to discuss: tonight's Democratic debate

You are looking live at Philadelphia, where the 21st debate of the Democratic campaign is about to begin. Frankly, I expected this would be over long ago. I mean, it is over--Clinton's chances of willing are nearly zero--but on we go. Will Hillary be on the attack? Will Obama try to run out the clock? And away we go...

• Beginning with opening statements? We haven't had a debate with openers yet, have we? Barack tells a story right out of the gate about a "bitter" voter, but he uses the term "discouraged." Is he baiting Hillary? Or by mentioning that theme in the opening, is he trying to get out in front of it.
  
• Hillary is looking above the camera. It looks like the spectators in the hall are all above the eye level of the candidate. It feels like she's talking past me.
  
• What? A commercial right out of the gate? What is this? There blunts the impact of either of those statements.
  
• Oh come on, Charlie. You know that question not going to be answered. Neither of them want the other as a running mate.
  
• This had better be good. I'm passing up Red Sox-Yankees for this.
  
• Charlie pulling out a clause of the constitution that was amended 200 years ago. That clause would mean that either McCain or Obama/Clinton would be the other's vice president. It was such a bad idea in practice that the country got rid of it almost as soon as they ratified the constitution.
  
• Barack, are you patronizing working class people? I didn't like his answer. I know exactly what he is trying to say. He's saying that people vote values issues because they don't think the government can help them. If they believed that a candidate could help change their economic situation, they would vote that way.
  
• Hillary won't come right out and say that Barack can beat McCain. She talked around it. Now she gets to it. She's off to a pretty good start, actually.
  
• Obama slips in Hillary's baking cookies flub from 1992! Kapow! She wasn't elitist then, and I'm not elitist now. Such a nice, soft little dig. I'll bet this gets play tomorrow.
  
• Back to Reverend Wright...I'm having a hard time staying engaged. It's all a rehash. This issue is what, five weeks old now? Hillary would have walked out if she'd been in church the Sunday after 9/11, Barack wasn't there. So on and so on. Why are we spending 10 minutes on this. Clinton ought to just stand out of the way. If the Wright comments are bad enough, let them stand on their own. She's going to get in the way by pushing the issue.
  
• Hillary, why did you lie about Bosnia? Pretty good answer. She admitted that she embellished the story, and that she knew she was overreaching. She's overtalking a little--trying to explain it away--she just can't be "one and done."
  
• We have yet to get to any of the "issues" in this campaign. As good as the last Charlie Gibson debate was--it seemed to be so centered on the issues--this one has been all about "gotcha" questions and inside baseball.
  
• Obama doesn't seem comfortable at all. He needs to be a bit more off the cuff.
  
• Oh God! The flag-pin question! Is there truly nothing new to talk about?
  
• It's about time Obama asked the question of whether he is going to be held accountable for the statements of anybody who knows him? Good for him for calling George Stephonopolous out.
  
• Hillary refuses to let Obama stew in his own trouble. If he's being hammered, she ought to let him be hammered. She tries to keep the issue of the weathermen alive, and Obama hits back with the reminder that Bill Clinton pardoned two of them. She can't leave well enough alone.

Alright, I just switched over to the Red Sox game for a moment and it's 9-7 Sox in the 5th. I'm not going to spend another hour and a half of this kind of old news. I've got the thing on DVR. If it turns out that there is something important that I missed, I can always watch it later.

Tags: Election 2008 Democratic Primary Barack Obama Hillary Clinton

Bruin and Stewin'

A couple of thoughts that have been swirling in my head since watching last night's Bruins-Canadiens playoff game:

That was as much fun as I've had watching a hockey game in a long time. It was a true, edge-of-your-seat playoff game right from the opening drop to the Bruins' goal in OT. End-to-end rushes, fantastic goaltending, and good hard hitting. While it would have been a bitter disappointment if the Bruins had lost, it still would have been worth watching. Even the Canadian press liked the game:

BOSTON - If you want to sell the National Hockey League, you don't need more scoring, bigger nets or smaller equipment for goaltenders. All you need are more games played with the same intensity as last night's war between the Montreal Canadiens and the Boston Bruins.

Neither team gave an inch as they battled for more than 69 minutes before Marc Savard of Orléans scored on a delayed penalty at 9:25 of the first overtime to give Bruins a 2-1 victory.

This was old-fashioned playoff hockey which kept the sellout crowd of 17,565 on edge all night, and the victory gave the Bruins new hope in this series. They trail the best-of-seven Eastern Conference quarterfinal two games to one, with Game 4 here tomorrow night.

Unfortunately, the Globe decided it was Dan Shaughnessy's duty to write the paper's column. You'd think he hadn't even seen the game in person:

The Bruins haven't been in the playoffs since 2004 (also a first-round loss to Montreal) and it felt pretty flat - especially given everything that's going on with the Red Sox, Celtics, and the Boston College men's hockey NCAA championship.

Perhaps he'd have rather spent four-plus excruciating hours at Fenway Park.

Milan Lucic is a budding star. There are those who have compared him to a young Cam Neely and anyone who watched lsat night's game understands why. He finished his checks--and finished them hard--he was aggressive in front of the net and in the slot, scoring the first goal of the game. He was the dominant player on the ice last night. Now, he doesn't yet have the scoring touch of a Neely (number 8 would have had a hat trick if he'd had the same two breakaway chances that Lucic was unable to finish) and probably never will, but he could be a dominant player for years to come.

I didn't mind the influx of Canadiens' fans, but I was put off that the Jacobs family ended up selling ad space on the boards to Montreal companies. I noticed at least three ads for companies that do business exclusively in Canada, including one which was written in French. I suppose the Jacobses can (and will) do anything for money, but you'd think that there would be a couple of companies doing business in New England that would like to buy ad space.

Tags: Boston Bruins Montreal Canadiens NHL