Nightwing

The samizdat reference in that article cracked me up.

I'd put Bertuzzi up there. While it's not a huge contract, it's definitely 2 or even 3 million more than it should be for a guy who hasn't proven himself to be worth that much after his injuries and such. Add in the fact that he only has 7 points in 18 games, has been injured, and is one of the reasons the Ducks are having Cap problems... Yeah. He's not the worst, but he's a serious detriment to his team right now.

It's not the Catholic Church who declared it evil. I believe they called it a well-written story. Just a few small sects have said something.

I just don't understand why we should concentrate on it. To me, it detracts from what is really causing the problem. I'm in Michigan, and the problems of Detroit and gang-violence aren't going to be solved with more gun regulation. I do agree that we should strive for registering guns and such. But putting more and more regulations on guns doesn't do anything to halt the flow of illegal guns, stop gun violence in big cities, and other problems that they are associated with. Why not put our efforts towards curbing the majority of gun violence rather than putting reactionary regulations into effect to curb the least likely gun violence of all? Again, these rampages won't just stop because people who snap will find ways to kill people: run people down with cars, go crazy with a knife, create explosives. Just because someone snaps doesn't mean they are going to immediately going to kill someone; it just means they no longer care about their lives and have little care for those around them. They are still reasoning beings. If they want to kill someone, they aren't going to be stopped because you've made guns harder to get to. At this point, legality doesn't really matter much anymore. We can't control when someone snaps. People just do from the stress of life. Let's concentrate on solving issues we have much more control over, like changing the culture of the inner cities.

They are? Huh. I didn't realize that gun restrictions magically stopped rampages. I mean, they obviously don't stop criminals from getting their hands on illegal guns to commit a carjacking, but guys who are prepared to kill dozens of innocent people? Man, will they think twice! You're exactly right: It shouldn't be a concern. It's a symptom of a problem we need to take care of: Poverty in cities. Heck, I wish the Democrats would get off the "Gun Control" bandwagon and turn it around on the Republicans: Guns aren't the problem, people are? Fine, let's help these people, fix their lives, and stop giving guns a bad name. Use it as a way to push one of the classic platforms of the Democratic Party instead of just getting hung up on it and losing votes from people who would otherwise vote Democrat. The vast majority of gun violence doesn't involve rampages. And they do occur in other places across the world. Ever heard the word "amok"? It comes a Malaysian syndrome where a man will just go insane and starting killing anyone he meets, often occurring with a knife or even their bare hands. How about this one, in Finland? You have this idea that rampages are spontaneous things. They often aren't. They're planned and they aren't going to be deterred by some gun laws.

Do you honestly believe that these rampages would just stop if we put harsher restrictions on guns? Or would they just switch to explosives or something like that? Why is it that people think rampages are caused by someone who just woke up and said "Hey, I just want to kill some people!" rather than people, you know, actually planning them in advance? And what makes you think that a few more regulations and making guns a bit harder to get to is really going to stop these people if they are really ready to kill dozens of people?

So you are going with a 'revolver-only' policy here? Why would that work when harsher ones haven't?

Because criminals will pick up more powerful versions from other countries? And no matter how much you tone down a gun, it'll still kill or severely injure someone (Unless you're wearing a vest). I don't think regulation of the stopping power of a weapon is going to help the problem much. I'm not a deregulation guy (Really, I think we need to improve our tracking and weapons databases), but I still think we are looking at this problem the wrong way.

Did you miss the part where they said they reportedly found explosives? I mean, you're looking the wrong way at something. Guns aren't the problem: Taking a gun out of the hands of a gang-banger won't make him an upstanding citizen. Without a gun, he'll look for a new way, or simply acquire one illegally. We are talking about someone who is ready to commit murder here; I don't think they care much about the 90-day Misdemeanor you get for having an unregistered firearm. Read the report again: Do you really think that he woke up that morning and just decided out of the blue "Hey, let's kill someone!" No. He obviously planned it, and I hope you're not naive enough to think that a gun law would stop him from doing this. If not with a gun, with explosives or some other way. Making it harder for people who are going through the legal channels to get guns doesn't make sense. Increasing the time for someone using a deadly weapon with a crime, or simply taking a long hard look at changing the inner-city culture via government aid would probably be smarter. I know that 'government aid' is a nebulous term, but I feel addressing the actual cause of the violence would be a better idea than simply attempting to restrict the legality of means, especially when they aren't following it already.

Can someone explain to me how this is a gun problem?

DAMN IT! Nearly ended it right there. Fuckin' A.

Stopped. And now it's up to the Detroit Defense. With no time outs for Dallas, this is going to be nerve-wracking.

Big play by the Lions there. They absolutely need to make it into Field Goal range to make this a two possession game against this Cowboys team.

Detroit still at the 1 with 3 and 10. There's a whole bunch of time left here. Edit: Clutch play by the Lions there.

Those last numbers are deceptive, because those four years of 40+ Home Runs he was setting records with the amount of intentional walks he was getting. In 2004, nearly a third of all his at-bats were intentional walks, and he still managed to hit 45 Home Runs. His drop off isn't because that 73 was a magical season, but rather everyone in the league didn't dare actually pitch to him. Put those intentional walks to a regular level, and he's getting a lot more Home Runs.

Where would people rank Mike Ilitch with his combined ownership of the Wings and Tigers? I mean, he's never good at the onset (He bought the Wings in the early eighties, if I remember correctly), but after about 8 years, his teams become real contenders. Just wondering, because I think people forget that while the Wings have been dominant under him, it took a little while to build them into that dominant team. Also, look at his hiring of Randy Smith with the Tigers, who was atrocious. Just putting this up for discussion.

Datsyuk has really turned it on as of late and Zetterberg has looked stellar all year. Even Hasek looked good tonight. That slide into Gaborik was awesome. Yeah. Datsyuk is suddenly coming out of his "I'm the reincarnation of Igor Larionov" mode and started shooting and scoring goals. Of course, I'll take a 3 Assist night at any time. And that slide was easily the coolest hit of the year. Gaborik doing a head-over-heels flip was nearly amazing as Hasek's brass balls to come out like that. I don't think Gaborik thought he was going to hit him. Also, I'm really starting to like Aaron Downie. The guy doesn't win too many fights (or put up any numbers), but he's trying, and he's starting to become a physical presence on a team that sorely needs it.

Maris went 16 to 61 in two years. Ruth went 11 to 54 in two years. Hank Greenberg went 1 to 58 in two years. Well, let's not take those stats completely out of context: Ruth had just come off being a pitcher and was just starting to bat regularly. One could consider the two years a grace period, especially when he's switching positions and hadn't been established at hitting home runs at a certain rate yet. Greenberg only played twelve games in the season that he hit 1 home run. You can't be serious on this one, can you? Maris can only be explained by a magical season. His numbers level back out quite quickly back down. That season, he was just on. I suppose you could make the same argument for Barry Bonds as well, if we didn't know that he had actually been taking anabolic steroids at the time. So you got me on 1 of 3 there. But the third was damn good. Honestly, I don't see what good it does to target individual athletes for something so obviously part of the sports culture of the last 15-20 years. The system is broken, not the athletes. I'm only saying that if you are going to go after athletes, don't go after just one and go after them all. To crucify one and let the others off with a hand-slap is hypocrisy. I don't normally pay much attention to baseball, so maybe I shouldn't speak.

What I want to know is why blatantly breaking the rules of the game (spitballs, emery boards, etc.) is considered totally meaningless, but nebulously "cheating" (steroids, which don't actually involve cheating the written rules of the game, or at least until recently) is the worst violation known to man? Alright, two things: 1) Are you implying that taking Steroids isn't actually cheating? You know, because you put in it quotes and all. I mean, we know that Baseball was late to the game with the rules, but it was banned from just about every major sporting league long before that. Just because they didn't have rules on it doesn't make it any more right. This idea of "Well, it wasn't really in the rules" doesn't mean that it's completely against the spirit of the game and has seriously hurt the game's credibility. Seriously, let's get this down right now: He cheated, and yes, it's one of the worst offenses you can have. People return Olympic Gold Medals because of these things. It's a serious deal. 2) Probably because it's a lot harder to make a career off spitballs and emery boards than anabolic steroids. I dunno, that's just a guess by me, but I really don't know of anyone in the modern age who has had a career-defining season via that sort of cheating, nor have I heard any accusations of such a thing. To me, it would seem to be too hard to do without getting caught multiple times nowadays. With steroids, that something you can't catch on a field, and we've seen what it can do to one's career (Man in Blak is exactly right: 34 to 73 in 2 years is a big deal). Anyways, I do feel that it's a bit wrong that only Barry is getting crucified for this. To me, it's not a racial thing (If so, what about Sosa), but is completely about Bonds, his records, and his attitude. He was the poster boy, which is why he is the one that has to pay. While I agree that he should be punished in some way, you need to go after the other big names like McGuire and Sosa.

Every time I read about Crawford's involvement, I just keep putting the entire scene to dialog from The Karate Kid. Wings looking scary-dominant against the Wild tonight.

Well, never mind that comment.

WELCOME TO INJURY BOWL '07! Jesus. Does anyone remember the last tie in the televised era? Because I think we might get one tonight.

Oh God, I'm quoting that one. He had to be drunk when he said that.

We finally have an actual dumbass Boston fan on these boards. Pick on him and leave the rest of us alone. Thank you for illustrating my point. He's a Pats fan, you retard. You just illustrated his point.

Here's that whole "Tagging Problem" thing that I was talking about. I still don't think this is going to be the magic cure-all for the Ducks. While Niedermeyer will help on Defense, they aren't scoring nearly enough goals. They need a real scorer like Selanne to get back into a serious Cup hunt.