The Preds (2-3) will try to reach .500 for the first time this season tonight when they visit the New York Rangers (3-3). The irony has not been lost on me that Nashville’s 0-3 start is their worst-ever at the outset of what many have anticipated will be their best season yet. It’s amazing to think that this talented roster began with three losses (two against Chicago, no less) when far-less skilled squads managed at least one win in the same number of games.

Tonight may be a tough test for the Preds to level out their record. The Rangers lead the Atlantic Division, though their record is only average, and they have been playing well of late. They’ve been doing what the Preds have not: penalty killing and playing sharp defense. That’s a good combination with a roster loaded with scoring talent.

Nashville has looked sharper on defense at full strength and shorthanded during its modest two-game winning streak, but it still has the worst penalty kill percentage (61.9) in the entire league. It is early, but that has to change soon, and tonight would be the ideal time. We’ll see.

This is a savvy, albeit immoral, marketing strategy. The maker of this new energy drink is banking on negative publicity driving sales in the short term. (It’s only available in New York and California right now.) In the long term, the name probably won’t last, but that may not matter if the creator is just banking on a quick buck.

I’m not offended by the use of this product name, but I do think it is wrong. Profiting by making light of or in any way endorsing substance abuse is really an awful thing to do. If you live in New York or California, please don’t fall for the hype and buy this drink. Let’s let the market echo what I imagine will be common public perception: This isn’t a good thing.

I’m glad that former U.S. Representative Mark Foley is informing the Archdiocese of Miami about sexual abuse by a priest that he says he experienced as a teen.

Whatever the reasons for Foley’s decision to seek justice and/or closure about the abuse, I think that is a good thing. Where I object is his public announcement about his decision to report the abuse and his timing: three weeks prior to a critical national election. I do not know enough about Mark Foley to judge his character or know his motives, but viewed in this context, this action looks awfully suspicious. Why not report privately and wait to see how the Archdiocese responds first? If the real motive is to move on with his life, why not wait until after the election to keep politics out of it, as much as that is possible?

If these allegiations are true, I do believe that they played a significant role in Foley’s subsequent actions, though I still believe he is (and we all are) responsible for the things we do, good and bad. Publicly reporting the priest’s actions looks to me like blame shifting and an attempt to change the focus from himself to another person.