Baumblog EST 1968 - A blog for the Baumbachs who originated in Syracuse, NY

As you all probably know, I lean on the conservative side of things. That does not mean that I agree with everything that comes out on Fox News. That also doesn't mean that I disagree with everything on MSNBC and NBC news.

With that said, I can't believe the administration is continuing it's march to diminish Fox News as a news organization. This is EXTREMELY dangerous for any politician or group. Does anyone remember Richard Nixon? He went up against the media and look what happened to him. Of course, he was caught up in a huge scandal (not the media's fault) but trying to bash/marginalize the media just quickened his demise. If you look a little deeper there are a few parallels: economic woes and unpopular war, for example. Nixon hated all media equally for many years, although there was no FOX News back then.

I thought it was just a few rouge individuals who were going to hang themselves out on this one, but when David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel joined in yesterday I just couldn't believe it. They need to let this go and get on with the important business of running the government.

In a free society, you just have to deal with things like this. You know, like I have to deal with GJ! :)

Geoff said about 2 hours later

oh you asked for it...can't wait to hear what the liberal giant has to say :P
GJ said about 3 hours later

The liberal giant, indeed. As Steve will testify, I'm more conservative than probably anyone else in the family on several financial management / business issues, but at the same time I support the concepts of welfare / social justice, equal rights for every dang human, right of a woman to choose, and several other left wing planks. So of course, that makes me a liberal. Whatever.

That said, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and CNN are all pathetic excuses for news.

Fox, like it or not, is the mouthpiece of the right wing of the Republican Party. If you can't see this, you're blind. There is one voice of reason on Fox (and the only one I watch on Fox), and his name is Shepard Smith. The rest of them are unabashedly biased--but then again, half of what passes for news on Fox is entertainment. Glen Beck, anyone? Sean Hannity? I could go on an on. As for news reporting, see what I have to say about CNN. They're guilty of the same sins.

CNBC whorships (yes, that's a intentional pun, folks) at the altar of the financial gods. They continually portray the false images that the market can be timed and played (it cannot), that certain financial managers are very talented and that's why their returns are so good at the moment (which is total BS), and basically plays up Wall Street like it's the damn most important thing in the world. They have a very one-dimensional view of the economy, and frankly most of what they report on pretty much useless. Kind of like Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.

MSNBC--these doofuses are kind of like the liberal equivalent of Fox. There is at least a little good programming on--as liberal as she is, Rachel Maddow is a great interviewer and actually respectful of her guests. Olbermann is a blowhard, not quite as bad as Beck but my leftist tendencies are probably coloring my opinion. As for their news reporting, look to what I have to say about CNN, as the same holds here.

CNN--these guys were the first real 24/7 news organization. You know what? We don't need 24 hours of news--there isn't that much going on that you can fill a day, at least not enough to justify ratings. So, instead, they invent BREAKING NEWS and URGENT BROADCASTS and beat them to a pulp. Remember Balloon Boy? Michael Jackson's death? Any pretty white girl gone missing? It's not that these guys are liberal, it's more that they're just a bunch of no-nothing talking heads who jump on any old thing that might be great tabloid material, dress it up in fancy graphics, and endlessly rehash minimal details and expand on them illogically.

News in this country absolutely sucks--it's turned very much into an entertainment venue, and the value of news they deliver today is almost non-existent. It's a waste of my time, but more importantly, what values is this teaching to our kids?

So, you ask, where do I get my news? Mostly internet (AP news feeds), print (The Economist and the Wall Street Journal), and the John Stewart show. Before you laugh at that last one, give me a second. Yes, he's got a liberal bent, and yes, it's a comedy show, but I have news for you: he covers news items that are fairly important, yet the big news channels don't bother with. Add to that he does interviews with fairly interesting people and asks some pretty good questions. It's pretty ironic that I go to an ENTERTAINMENT show and find more news there than on a NEWS PROGRAM. That's not just ironic, it's sad.

However, as much I find that Fox News is a joke, I agree with Eric that this effort by the Obama administration to go after Fox is ill advised. I know they're trying to win in the court of public opinion, but they need to face up to the fact that a significant portion of the population is both crazy and die hard (insert right or left wing here as appropriate) and will eat up whatever crap Fox, CNN, MSNBC or even CNBC claims as fact without any real evidence, no matter how outrageous. Those people will never be swayed--concentrate on the swing voters, people who actually think about political issues rather than just repeat sound bytes they've heard, and get them on board your programs. Or (Obama, are you listening?), put together a program that will fix the health care problem, not simply expand on the mistakes of the past.
Geoff said about 5 hours later

conservative business issues? GJ? Now this I have to hear. Throwing money into welfare programs is about as distant from "conservative" values as the nearest star is from Earth. Now, the term conservative has quite a few meanings, so perhaps you have a different interpretation than I, but I'd be curious to know some of these "conservative" issues you fall in line with. :)
GJ said about 5 hours later

"Throwing money into welfare programs" is a typical sound byte from a wannabe conservative. You have a well-known aversion to welfare, big hairy deal. You also fail to recognize the need for any kind of welfare, and would rather live in a dystopian Ayn Rand world. Enjoy.

Conservative? Here you go. No corporate welfare. Bailing out the domestic automakers and then going on to practically buy GM was STUPID, and the GOP were the "conservatives" who came up with this. Let the economics of the day determine which industries live and which die.

Taxes have a purpose. Keep them as low as possible to prevent starving the economy, but don't cut them recklessly for political points. Balance the budget, and stop floating huge deficits and claiming that "it's the way business gets done in Washington." Cut all programs as needed to achieve this--share the pain, from the military to education to health/human services. It's this pain that will definitely show government which programs have the most value by their absence and ramp up of problems. Use those findings to set future budgeting priorities.

Welfare, yes, let's talk welfare. Purpose--to alleviate suffering of the unfortunate. For the younger crowd--help educate those who slipped through the cracks in our education system--try to enable them to become productive citizens, and become as self-sufficient as possible. For the older crowd--we have lots more of them floating around now that the average lifespan of people have gone up so much. We should be prepared to help feed, clothe and house them if we value life so very much, since not everyone had the smarts or the opportunity to save for their old age. Certainly, you can't give them a life of luxury, but do you turn them out in the street? Yeah, I know Geoff would. But the country as a whole doesn't think that way, which is how the welfare systems have survived so long.

I won't claim for a second that there is no fraud, nor that it's not a significant drain on the money we pour into these programs. That doesn't mean we just shut off welfare, either.

Back to conservative ideas:

The Constitution is not a joke. Acts to circumvent it outside of lawfully prescribed methods of changing it should be dealt with harshly (Bush/Cheney and their Patriot Act, I'm looking at you).

Foreign policy: we need to be much less focuses on spreading democracy and far more focuses on spreading human rights. Keep a potent fighting force, but greatly scale back our nuclear arms. Look to encourage free trade as much as possible, and avoid forming trade treaties that give unreasonable terms for either party.

Revise the tax code--but keep the idea that the more money you make, the more the government takes. Get rid of all the goofy exemptions, etc. Pursue tax dodgers aggressively.

See, I'm not quite a full-bore liberal. More like a left leaning moderate. Until you get me talking about the religious right. :)
Geoff said about 6 hours later

I never said eliminate welfare, it needs to be far more strict however. I've always believed the majority of welfare goes to the least contributing citizens. I don't believe in encouraging or providing for these people. It serves the country no good. I Would like to see some statistics as to how much welfare has increased over the years...in both availability and the number of people participating. It appears to be growing...not good. I'll have to do some research.

At what point should the hard workers stop working hard if their effort pays the effortless? The current economy is a great example. Tried to hire an intern and she refused (laid off, on government pay) because she was being paid more by the government. Right there, it goes to show that the program itself encourages fraud and abuse. I don't blame her...she can make more money doing nothing. And to boot, they've lengthened benefits yet again. Woohoo!

GJ said about 7 hours later

Or is it an indictment of how much you offered to pay the intern? :)
Geoff said about 8 hours later

$12/hr to answer phone calls??? (and we only get maybe a dozen or so calls a day) I'd say that is far greater than flipping burgers for $8/hr. Thats a little over $2000 a month...not horrible pay compared to making $0/month.

While that doesn't pay as well as her original job, it was a temporary job while she looked. In that regard, she could have reported the income, had reduced government benefits (thus saving tax payers money) and still make enough to survive...well maybe not the American way, but you could eat food and live someplace for $25k/year. It's a lousy system as Dad has come to find out. It needs fixing.

Lets hope the economy continues up as the stock market appears to be doing. This country needs all the money we can get.
GJ said about 11 hours later

Yep, I'd agree there's a lot to fix. Hey, we agree on something. :)

The market recovery--don't bet it will last. There are more storms brewing on the horizon that should erupt in the next six months or so. I'm not sure we even saw bottom, unfortunately, but only time will tell.
Geoff said about 12 hours later

Ok we need more people to jump in and argue...GJ and I can only beat each other up so much...however enjoyable it may be.

Any takers? :P
Eric said about 20 hours later

Well, the discussion took an amazing turn that has nothing to do with what I originally wrote.

News organizations will continue to exist. Everyone has an opinion, I don't care who you are or what news organization you are with. It is going to be present in your news reporting. Some are left-leaning and some are right-leaning. Some more than others. None are completely in the center and it's dangerous for the administration to tell the American people that CNN and ABC are acceptable news organizations but not FOX news. Sounds like something Hugo Chavez might have said before he took control of the media in Venezuela.

For their sake, they better back down or there's going to be a huge backlash. FOX personalities are in a feeding frenzy over this. And they have a HUGE following. It doesn't matter how crazy you think they are.

I knew this would happen if I opened up the political floodgates, but I just couldn't stop myself. This is my biggest concern with government. Tax the crap out of me. Take away this, make me do that. But don't tell me what to think. You say FOX news is not a news organization, you are basically saying that their opinion is wrong. IT'S NOT WRONG. IT'S A DIFFERENT OPINION. And that's okay in the US. Or it used to be.
Eric said about 21 hours later

Oh and Rachel Maddow? No offense but she is one of the most annoying personalities in news as far as I'm concerned. I don't agree with a single thing that comes out of her mouth. Just my opinion.
Eric said 1 day later

On the other items (since we're talking about them):

No Bailouts! (agree with GJ)

Low Taxes, Cut Spending, Balance Budget (agree with GJ)

Welfare - necessary, especially for disabled (physically and mentally) and for those caught in situations that are no fault of their own (layoffs, accidents, etc.) I kind of agree with GJ, but I agree with Geoff somewhat too. Tough because it's mostly a state issue, not federal. Or should be. Fed keep out!

Constitution is the law of the land. (agree with GJ)

Foreign Policy - kind of agree with GJ. Don't spread democracy, but strongly encourage free societies. Free societies will foster better human rights (although it may take considerable time.) Free trade? Won't happen. Fair trade needs to happen. Charge same fees they charge for imports. Seems fair to me.

Revise Tax Code - Absolutely. Flat tax. Done deal. Russia did it. The government takes in a ton more cash than it did before and everyone's on the same playing field. Seems fair to me.

In general, the Fed needs to back way off. This is the UNITED STATES. Our government was founded on principles that protect States rights. That has worked very well in the short time it has been our nations backbone. Yes, the Federal government has a purpose in many aspects of our lives. However, there are many things going on right now (like Health Care ding ding ding!) that are State responsibility, not Fed. The reason why so many other countries have so much government control is because THEY DON'T HAVE STATES! Their Fed IS the only government! In the US, the States hold the greatest amount of government control - or should. If you don't agree with this, than you better take a look at the Constitution again. Especially with this Health Care bill looming, I cannot believe this is not the major arguement on the airwaves. I think it's absolutely important to have proper health care (notice I didn't say health insurance) for everyone. But it is the State's responsibility to enact it, not the Fed.
Geoff said 1 day later

I couldn't agree more...and probably more reason for me to get the hell out of NY since they would be the first to pass any health legislature reform. This state's taxes are so ludicrous, not to mention my town! In the past 2 years my monthly mortgage has increased by $140/month due to taxes (I've got a fixed loan). 13% increase...damn town! And don't get me started on what it costs to provide health care to our employees. Anyone in need of an international website? There are on sale this week!
GJ said 1 day later

Flat tax has some serious flaws. I'm not going to go into them right now, but there's a reason why the billionaires like this one a lot. :)

States rights are overblown. The reason why we have so much government it because of duplicate government functions at the state and federal level. The Constitution favors state rights over federal, but the federal government (both conservatives and liberals) have moved a lot of the onus onto the federal level. We're also a player on the world stage far greater than the writers of the Constitution ever imagined. Due to that, we pretty much need a strong federal government, lest we simply break up the union and effectively become 50 independent countries.

I find it endlessly amusing that those that want the strongest military and most aggressive foreign policies often are the strongest proponents of state's rights. The two aren't overly compatible.

Early on in the country's history, most of the laws on the books were state based. However, left to their own devices, states maintained slavery, and the feds intervened. Left to their own devices, states allowed factories to exploit children, and the feds intervened. Again, left to their own devices, some states encouraged and expanded segregation and Jim Crow laws, and the feds again intervened. Was the fed out of line? My bet is, you can find a whole lot of conservatives who think the fed overstepped their authority in each instance. You may or may not agree. You can probably guess where I fall on that scale, being the big bad liberal.

So, there is a lot precedent for the feds acting on health care. However, the fed is really good at screwing this sort of thing up. From what I can tell, they aren't so much screwing this one up as they are pretty much not making any meaningful changes. Costs will not be contained, maybe 50% of the uninsured will now have some coverage, and taxes will go up. That's not a solution in my book. Obama has the power to ram home real change here, but it would take courage, since the mainline Dems don't really want the hard choices fixes and neither does the GOP (the "don't touch our seniors" party).

Speaking of NY taxes, they are indeed high. Quite a bit of that is waste, but we also carry way more services than many other states and spend a whole lot on education so our kids get smart and move out of state. :)

Geoff said 1 day later

Guess I missed that class :)
Eric said 1 day later

The rest of us got that one! Not that Michigan's the best place to be right now.

Needless-to-say, the vast majority of people in this country agree on 90% (give or take) of everything. It's that last 10% that fires everyone up!

I don't know how ending slavery or imposing child labor laws gives precedent for giving people "affordable" health insurance. If that's true precedent, than what isn't? Oh, and did you see who the group is that is significantly increasing their support of the public option? Seniors! Why in the world would seniors support a public option? They already have a public health plan, duh!
Marc said 2 days later

Eric keeps mentioning things should be done at the state level and not fed. I agree. To be honest though, it seems like the media and possibly even the state representatives are constantly pushing the federal government to take action. Maybe it's just down here in NC, but the state level representatives don't seem to do much of anything other than escalate things up to the feds. What's the cause of that problem and how do we fix that? While the president and federal government are supposed to protect our rights and constitution, they can't be expected to get everyone's opinion, that's why we have this representative based government.

And don't tell me the way to fix it is to get involved in politics. I'm paying these people's salaries so I don't have to bicker about this kind of stuff all day. :)
GJ said 2 days later

OK, Eric, I'll spell out the precedent for you. The Fed intervenes when the States fail to act. The States have a history of failing to act. Since health care is the domain of the state (according to you, and for the most part, that's correct), you claim the feds should butt out.

Why is that? Because the states are doing such a bang-up job of managing health care? Ding ding. They're not. Why do you think we're having all this fun? Because, frankly, medical spending is bankrupting the federal and state govenments, bankrupting employers, and not doing a very good job of keeping the population as a whole healthy. So, that's why the Fed is taking this on.

So rather than play this game of "hey, hands off, this is a state issue" how about we play "hey, stop playing around here and make some real changes to this stupid system that both saves on cost but ensures basic coverage for all." That would seem to be the more productive of the two, imho.

Sorry, Marc, but if you check out and leave the governing to the politicians, you get the lovely corruption we have today. Accountability is what keeps these morons in check.
Eric said 3 days later

I'm going to sound like a republican jack@$$ now, but here goes.

Medicare is out of control. Social Security is out of control. Those need to be fixed. They need to propose some solutions, pick the most viable ones and run with it. And not add to the deficit.

Everyone in America (citizen or not) can get the health care they need 24 hours a day. Yes, there are problems with that. I understand. We pay the cost of the uninsured. Too bad. That's one of the things we need to deal with until the government gets their costs under control. Do people get turned away? Not often, since it's illegal. Do we need to enforce this and make sure everyone is treated fairly? Absolutely. And notice above that I said "need." If you look at your health insurance policy there are a ton of things covered that you don't necessarily need. But everyone should have access to care that is needed to keep them healthy and cares for them in emergency situations. Does that mean they need an insurance policy? Not necessarily.

GJ, you yourself said we need to sacrifice. You said the government needs to get spending under control and be fiscally responsible. I don't see the bailouts, stimulus package, cash for clunkers, climate bill, or health care bill as being fiscally responsible. The only one I even have any support for (small as it may be) is the health care issue. Only because I agree that every needs to have access to quality health care. So do the minimum right now to make sure that everyone has that - they don't need insurance necessarily, and they don't need to be on Medicare+. Then, once govermnent spending is under control, fiscally responsible decisions can be made to come up with a health care system that is fully funded within the federal (or state) budget.

I think you have to agree that the current bill won't solve all the issues and will increase spending dramatically. Look at Massachusetts. Everyone is covered by insurance by their employer or by a state insurance program. Spending is out of control. Sure it gave everyone insurance. But now they are looking at scaling back the program and reducing or eliminating services to try to get the costs under control. Why would the federal plan be any different? Because it can be funded from wasteful spending within the Medicare system? Please. Based on past performance, the federal government will be lucky to keep Medicare spending at the current level. Let alone the fact that the number of people joining the ranks of Medicare over the next 10 years is going to skyrocket.

Do I still think the Fed should butt out? Absolutely, for now. There was not enough money to run the government during the Bush Administration, which was a nightmare. The spending now is unfathomable. I don't know how anyone in their right mind can think at this rate the country will every recover, financially. Prove me wrong. Maybe the Fed is buying lottery tickets. It better be one big windfall.
Geoff said 3 days later

Now if we had just elected Ron Paul we could be rid of the Federal Government and put some money in our pocket :)

-ANONYMOUS UNITED

GJ had posted a very good article awhile back that I thought had a very good approach to health care. I'd encourage any of you who didn't take a look at it to read it. Treat health insurance like car insurance. Car insurance doesn't cover oil changes or tire rotation...and health insurance shouldn't cover our regular check ups...it should cover the unexpected and costly procedures. This would obviously reduce costs and put more money in our pocket to decide when we REALLY need to go to the doctors. It's quite a bit more detailed than this, but just to give you an idea. It's a good read.
GJ said 3 days later

Actually, you came off sounding pretty reasonable. I don't agree with you in many places, but you sound a hell of a lot more reasonable than what I hear on Fox News. :)

Medicare/Social Security: agreed. Probably need a serious redefinition of the mission, and almost certainly a reduction in benefits. Probably going to be impossible to do without a grandfather clause that doesn't affect existing retirees, and then affects others closer to retirement on some kind of sliding benefit scale. This one will require a huge amount of political capital to pull off.

Health care: No, everyone cannot get the health care they need 24/7/365. Don't have insurance? You pay more than double than what the insurance companies pay, and medical care is expensive. Darcy was in the hospital for a week back in 1994 prior to us having insurance. That cost us $18,000. A freaking bottle of glucose was $400---four hundred dollars for a liter of SUGAR WATER!! Our yearly income was $24,000 at that time. Yeah, that was affordable--and we ended up getting NYS welfare to help us out. Had we not had that option, we would have been thrown into bankruptcy immediately. Had the hospital known that welfare was available to folks like us, they would have turned us away. Yeah, that's not health care for everyone, that's healthcare for the insured and the wealthy. Thus, the health care debate isn't just about money.

Sacrifice--yes, we do. We have grown accustomed to too much medical care--we spend far too much on expanding the lives of very sick people, and far too little on preventative care and health education. We need to move the health system to a system of competition, where you pay for results, not work done (like legions of testing, as a prime example of waste).

I would agree that the plan being proposed today will do the following:

* not be economically responsible
* not cover everyone, but drop the number of non-covered folks by half
* cost so much in political capital that we won't dare to touch this again for another ten years
* and in the end, we will end up making the same mistakes that Massachusetts made.

However, the idea of having the fed "butt out" is simplistic. They're already in the game, in the form of Medicare. Are you saying they should just drop Medicare and let the states pick up the responsibility? I don't profess to know the state of Michigan's finances, but New York is running an sweet deficit right now too. They're also not exactly the bastion of efficiency, either--so all we're doing it moving the costs to the states. For richer states (NY is one of these), it may be hard, but they can probably pull it off and replicate the crappy federal solution. For poorer states, (WV is one of these), you can pretty much write off that health care, since they don't have the resources and rely more heavily on the fed to make it.

So, no, the answer really isn't "dump it on the states" so much as it is "cut costs, cut benefits, cut corruption and inefficiency." It's also "change the game." The insurance model in this country has to go buh-bye, and instead we should look at turning medical care into any other consumer-driven industry. That's a very difficult thing to do, but necessary in order to provide cost containment going forward. So, how do we get that done?

Geoff said 3 days later

We simply can't. Too much damn money in the medical/pharma industry. Their political pull is mighty and unless we get someone with the balls to give them the finger and actually revolt against the system, nothing is going to change dramatically. Band-aids on a leaking damn is all this is. We'll continue down this road until it gets so bad people get so fed up they actually DO something about it...and by DO I don't mean Talk, I mean Molotov Cocktail. REAL change requires some significant action. Not that I encourage violence, but that is usually a common catalyst for change.
GJ said 3 days later

You think the medical and pharmaceutical companies are the only players here? How about the insurance companies? How about all the retirees? They vote a whole lot more than people your age do, and their elected reps pay attention to THEM as a result. So those elected reps won't touch Medicare or Social Security. See how this game works? You want change, you can effect it--by encouraging your generation to participate in government, rather than just complain about it or make dangerous seditious statements.

Keep drinking that Kool Aid. If you believe that the only true mechanism for change is violence, you obviously don't believe in the American Experiment. Since you don't think this form of government works, what form would you suggest? A hint--dictatorships are very good at getting things done, and quickly.
Geoff said 3 days later

Kool Aid...sure sure. The old fogies out number us young folks so there isn't much we can do but watch our money burn under the current scheme of things. I voted. I've emailed my reps. Got any other suggestions?
GJ said 3 days later

Kill a few old fogies?
Marc said 3 days later

What did we learn? Violence brings change! :)
GJ said 3 days later

Oh, it does. Just often, not the change originally envisioned, and typically at great cost. But, as the grand history of the human race has shown, we resort to it rather depressingly frequently, and I have little doubt we'll do it again someday even here in the States.
Geoff said 4 days later

Yup, all a matter of time.
Geoff said 7 days later

Here is a nice article for your health care waste:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091026/ts_nm/us_usa_healthcare_waste_4

Geoff said 3 minutes later

something tells me he practiced that more than 50x :)

GJ said about 1 hour later

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Video-Nasty-scoop-shot-goals-North-America-s-g?urn=nhl,195401&cp=7

not new.

Do that on me and the shooter is a dead man.

Geoff said about 2 hours later

Um, yeah the behind the net (which is the original) is cool, but this kid's penalty shot is WAAAAYYY cooler...and more difficult. 9 year old wins. I'll give credit to the first guy who did it from Michigan who inspired this 9 year old...but this trick shot is da bomb.

Marc said about 9 hours later

I'm still questioning whether the shot is even legal. I think his stick came above his waist, so technically it's a high sticking. But I guess because he's 9 so I'll let it slide. :) Although based on the goalie's stance, I'm pretty sure he could have just taken a shot and had the same outcome (minus the media coverage). I loved the goalies response twisting his glove like "Is that even fair?"

The 9 year old's shot was far more flashy. The goalie shouldn't have butterflied to the post, c'mon buddy, I'm a butterfly goalie and even I don't make that move in that situation. Bravo to both shooters.

Eric said about 18 hours later

I agree. 9 year old wins. I already saw the guy from Michigan score from behind the net. There's nothing illegal about it as long as the stick stays below the crossbar/waist.

Why is the guy a dead man, GJ? Because he embarrasses you? Come on, if somebody did this to you, you'd think it was awesome! I wouldn't hold your breath, though.

GJ said 1 day later

Nope, I don't think its awesome. I don't believe for a second it's in the spirit of the game, and in my opinion it should be illegal--basically, a travelling violation. You can't grab the puck out of mid air and carry it, why should doing it with a stick be any different in terms of transporting the puck?

Why would the shooter be a dead man? If a shooter comes at me on any sort of a breakaway and has their head down, I reward that with a flip check (hip check that topples the receiver). If they're pulling this stunt, I might head for them stick first. :)

Eric said 1 day later

Travelling? okay....

You can't "hand-handle" the puck or pass the puck with your hand either, obviously. But there's nothing in the rule book that I'm aware of that prohibits the puck being on the stick. What if I do a backhand shot that tends to "carry" the puck on the stick slightly longer than a slap-shot? How long am I allowed to have the puck on the stick?

Now I'm just teasing! :)

I would agree that it's not strictly prohibited by the rules, which is why I said it violates the spirit of the rules, but again, that's my opinion.