Nightwing

While it's fun to count the dead to make a (albeit valid) political point or simply declare everyone who doesn't have an American Flag Tattoo to get out, let's switch gears and actually discuss the war, shall we? I get the feeling that the vast majority of people on this board don't like the war (Just a hunch, mind you). With that in mind, how do we leave with a minimal chance of things getting worse? Both Obama and Hillary have plans to get us out in a year of their election, and both like to claim theirs is faster... but is that what we want? I mean, as great as it would be to have everyone home right now, I'm afraid that it their plan will either a) Not take into account problems and just be concerned with getting the hell out or b) Force them to abandon it as new political realities in Iraq spring up. I understand the need for them to do it politically right now, especially in the Democratic Primaries, but I'm not sure if they can hold to it with the nature of the conflict. I mean, what do you all think needs to happen in Iraq to be able to leave in a year? Should we be more concerned with making things hold in Iraq, or concerned with keeping on-track with our own removal? The entire region is at stake here, so we should really think about this question. Secondly, I feel it is time for the United States Government and Military to reexamine our military strength and readiness. Despite what has been told to me numerous times, the longer we are over there the harsher it comes down on our troops. I'm not demeaning the military's power or the will of our troops, but we seriously need to change the way we judge our military so we can properly assess our ability to run these sorts of operations. I feel like we are still running on estimates that we made during the Cold War and that's not the sort of war we are looking to run. How do we need to adapt our military to make it more efficient to fight the conflicts of today? Finally, is it possible for things to simply improve with a new President? I know NoCal has brought up this concept in either this thread or the Campaign 2008 thread, but with an Obama (Who I'm going to assume is the presumptive Democratic nominee) or a McCain, could it improve just because they aren't Bush? I mean, with an administration that would cut down on the rampant war-profiteering and admit to the wrongs that we've done, we might at least look better and not pay nearly as much for this conflict. Of course, that's a very optimistic assessment, but could measurable improvement come simply from removing the Bush Administration?

Well, giving up a 3 goal lead is a bit different than giving up a 1 goal one, though the "seconds later" phenomenon is something that definitely needs to be stopped. Again, I don't feel too bad about this loss; sure, it blows, but I feel like they needed this sort of wakeup call against Nashville. They're an emotional team, and Detroit needs to clamp down on them because they are likely to face another team like that (Calgary) if they go on to the Second Round. It didn't help that there were a lot of missed calls by the refs (Probably due to complaints from Nashville about the two previous games), but I don't feel like this was the end of the series. Not by a long shot.

Eh, it felt like a game they were gonna lose; they were getting lazy on defense, and you knew they were going to pay for it. I didn't think they'd get a sweep on Nashville, but I'm fairly confident they can beat them in Game 4.

God damn it, I feel like Morrison is going to go "PUNK'D!" and kill off Hawkman now. Just too much pointing towards Bats...

Geoff Johns. It's an obvious one, but frankly I think he can essentially write any DC Comics character and have them come out looking better. He also has a knack for taking dorky comic book concepts and making them incredibly cool (The latest arc of Action Comics being an excellent example), and his revisionist take on different franchises and ability to create interlocking threads (For example, Color Girl in the Subs is channeling the emotional power that Power Ring users use). He's probably my favorite writer right now. Grant Morrison. His crazy concepts and stuff make for great reads. His current Batman arc is fantastic, Seven Soldiers was great, and I can't wait for Final Crisis. Greg Rucka. The master of political intrigue, even better than Brubaker. Checkmate is one of the most intelligently written books on the market, with dozens of characters with distinct voices throughout the series. Jim Starlin. I love his ability to create cosmic epics and his art style has an old-school flavor to it that I love. A big plus for the writer/artist title as well. Ed Brubaker. A man who can weave an excellent noir tale and one who can invigorate most franchises. Iron Fist is brilliant, Captain America is brilliant... just everything he touches feels human and believable. Matt Fraction. I have no clue where he came from, but his work is some of the best stuff out there. He's like Marvel's version of Grant Morrison, really, as he has a mastery of taking wacky concepts and making them awesome. Warren Ellis. Super-science speak = great. His Ultimate Human series is great, Thunderbolts is even better. His ability to make comic book science sound believable is an achievement in and of itself.

You're kidding, right? If they both get knocked off, I'm pretty confident that the Red Wings could face any team in the East and be the favorite going in. There isn't a team that is better coached, deeper, or has more experience in the playoffs. I'm not counting the Sharks out yet, though I did bet against them in my predictions. The Ducks are in a whole different boat, but the Sharks still have decent chance right now.

Legace on Avery tonight: "He looked like he was conducting a marching band."

Wow. Calgary is not looking good...

Yes, but the problem is that the Michigan Democratic Party is ridiculous disarray, and the Republicans here are more powerful (and motivated) than people seem to realize. I mean, I know that any Democratic plan should really appeal to a Blue-Collar Manufacturing State, but with Kwame Kilpatrick tearing the Detroit political machine apart from the inside and Jenny Granholm basically being a symbol of irritating ineffectiveness, it's going to take a lot more than just that to get it to go blue again. And lets not forget that they are basically going to be ignored (At the moment) at the Democratic Convention. It's pretty disheartening, actually, when one lists it all out like that.

Well the big concern is that the whole Kwame debacle is going to keep the Detroit machine from getting fully mobilized as he's trying to avoid whole "I committed perjury and tried to cover it up by settling for 8.4 Million dollars to keep the sordid text messages" thing. Detroit is the largest reason this state goes Democratic, and while Granholm definitely deserves some blame (Then again, so do the Republicans in the State Legislature, as well as Engler, who will continue to take blame for this mess until Michigan is crushed by a glacier again), the state of confusion in Detroit right now could be a deathblow to the "Blue Michigan".

We've had something around 5 (Wikipedia says 5, but I'm not sure if I trust them...) Party Systems. Party systems basically eras of dominant ideological battles: Federalist vs. Democratic Republican, Whig vs. Democrat, Democrat vs. Republican. The major shifts in party ideology and makeup (For example, when the Dixiecrats essentially defected from the old Democratic Party) also count as new systems. I'm wondering if we are seeing the end of the current one, which has been around since the Civil Rights movement. It feels like both parties are becoming increasingly divided within themselves that we might see one crack and change. My money is on the Republicans (Which seems to be splitting between Christian Right and Capitalist Right), but it is certainly possible with the Democrats (Clinton Establishment, Obama New Wave).

I was just wondering this... Does anyone feel like this is the last leg of the current Party System? I mean, we've been through a few iterations of it, but it feels like the Republicans (And even the Democrats, though to a lesser extent right now) are becoming more and more factionalized to the point where it feels like they are going to break off and/or shift in some way. Obviously it isn't likely for a full-on breakup of either party (Even if the Clintons manage to get Humphrey-esque nomination), but I'm wondering if anyone is feeling some sort of landscape change in the next few years?

Right now, I'd fear for Michigan, too. I mean, it doesn't help with the farce that Michigan Democratic Party initiated, but Dean's idiotic response to not seat anyone was stupid. Along with the Mayor of Detroit causing a hellstorm of problems in the one real reason why this state is still a Democrat, and it'll be interesting to see what happens come election day. It's funny, really: the opposite thread in the Pit (I actually wandered over there) is mirroring this one almost exactly from the other side. This board needs a few decent Republicans, as the daily moaning in both these threads are not exactly conducive to interesting political discourse.

The ending in San Jose/Calgary is what makes playoff hockey the best sporting experience out there. I've never been so tense about two teams I don't care about, and Kipper was absolutely ridiculous in goal.

His art is just lifeless. It looks like someone posed some statues and he drew them. It's like the complete opposite of Gary Frank (Who has a wonderful sense of motion and life).

Perhaps. I think the worse part was the irritating delays. I mean, I personally liked the whole of the series, especially with the Gods taking mortal forms and such. It didn't get much exposure as well; it seems like niche Marvel series that are really good get a helluva lot better coverage than DC ones, and I put the blame on DC more than anything. Series like the Blue Beetle and Shadowpact deserve some better promotion.

Judd Winnick definitely sits on the negative side, even though he can occasionally pull some decent stuff out (For example, I actually liked a lot of the concepts and the ending of Trials of Shazam). Jeph Loeb, despite some good ones, is currently one of the worst writers out there. God help me, but he's completely ruined Ultimates for everyone.

Well, it's a shitty greenhouse gas, but a greenhouse gas nonetheless I suppose.

Well, the big feather in Boudreau's cap is that they were 6-14-1 w/Ovechkin but w/o him. I mean, to me it seems that he was the real catalyst for the change in fortunes there, and Ovechkin was the real beneficiary.

You know what? If you want to take away Babcock, put in Julien or Trotz. I don't think either were expected to make it to the playoffs before the season, and they scrapped hard to get in, despite either being injury-prone or simply lacking the talent we normally expect from a team. Also, both of them played in hard conferences (Despite the falloff, the Central was a tough division for a while and the Preds weathered that storm, and I think the Bruins plight goes without mentioning). At the very least, I find them more deserving than Wilson (Too much talent NOT to win), Thierren (Did great, but I just don't see it), and Quenneville (Who did get through injuries, but was playing in a division that is ridiculously inconsistent).

Ron Wilson deserves squat. His team basically underperformed the entire season until the last twenty games, and he had Nabakov carry him most of the way. He couldn't motivate Marleau or Cheecho like a good coach could have, and that team has been stacked with talent for a while now. I don't see him as deserving any sort of real award for his team suddenly managing to turn it on after being mediocre for no other reason than being mediocre. Thierren performed to expectations, if we are using that as an excuse. I'm not sure if he did anything better than Babcock, and Babcock was easily the most consistent coach of the year outside the spot where his top four defensemen were out. Did Quenneville really do anything impressive? I mean, this team was certainly a playoff team at the beginning of the year, and they didn't finish that far ahead of expectations. They should have finished in the playoffs, or just outside of it. Boudreau and Carbonneau are the real candidates, as neither of them should have, arguably, finished in the playoffs, let alone the seeds they are at. Sure, Washington's is inflated, but Boudreau inherited a 6-14-1 team, too. Babcock deserve a nomination due to the ridiculous consistency he got from his team, even if he is certainly not going to win.

Lidstrom is a no-contest for the Norris. Just look at his stats, his play, and you know that he already has it. The way he is playing, I wouldn't doubt that he'll surpass Orr's record for the Norris (Causing Don Cherry to have an aneurysm on-camera). It's still amazing that he's the first European player to win the Norris, and that he started getting them in 2001. I also have heard talk of him being up for the Hart, which would not be a bad choice, either. But Ovechkin will probably win it for his incredible performance to get the Caps in the Playoffs. And let's face it: that's a lot flashier and more noticeable than what Lidstrom has done. I think it's a two-horse race between Carbonneau and Bourdreau for the Adams. I love Babcock, and he's arguably the best coach in the game today, but both those teams missed the playoffs last year and were completely turned around (And with Bourdreau, somewhere around mid-season). I'd probably give it to Carbonneau, because Bourdreau plays in the weakest division in hockey and Montreal actually has tough competition. And what about the Vezina? Are we locking Nabokov into that one?

Link While I know that it's Wikipedia, the latter three are just wacky enough to warrant some discussion. An Original Six division? A Canadian Conference? Interesting ideas, if a bit out-there.

Did you just use forum quotes as a form of proof of Ron Paul's craziness? o.0

I'd say Paul is a kook, but snuff is right: the more you look at it, the less "small-government" the Republicans are. I mean, I just think the idea of a full pull-out across the world isn't the best strategy in the long-term, nor do I think his economic policies will help us much (regardless of how we are eased into them). Right now we need some regulation and control, and Ron Paul isn't about that. While smaller government would be absolutely great (And I am really starting to believe that Obama is this choice on this as I look into it), Ron Paul's idea of "small government" is just too much (or too little, as it were). Then again, I don't think Paul's endorsement of a Libertarian is going to hurt McCain much, as I don't think Paul was drawing in traditional Republican voters. He was attracting a lot of younger, college-age students who would probably vote third-party (or should be) anyways.