Nightwing

With the final issue out, I'm wondering everyone is reacting to the whole series. Did it live up to expectations, or was it a miss? God damn it, can a mod edit it so it says "World War Hulk"?

Yeah. I actually meant the sequel, where he subsequently comes back and tries to kick the Illuminati's asses. It finished yesterday, so I was wondering people's opinions. I accidentally wrote "Planet Hulk", but I meant "World War Hulk".

Numerous little territorial conflicts? There was the Soviet-Polish War, and that's about the only real conflict. But even if there were, it doesn't mean that it wasn't right. The Polish needed to have a country. They were a huge ethnic group that was not at all represented by their governments. It would have only caused future problems to keep them under both Germany and Russia (Especially when you consider that Russia went Soviet, like you've been saying). Countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia did absolutely fine, and while Yugoslavia had problems, it would have only been worse. You want to see a prime example of not doing this? Iraq, where you have three different groups trying to live as one. The only big problem I see in the sectioning was Yugoslavia, and that's only because they didn't take it far enough. But keeping it in the Hapsburg Empire wouldn't have done anything but create more and more racial tension that sparked the War itself. You can't tell me that you honestly think keeping the status quo would have somehow righted things; Europe was already screwed beyond belief due to aging and decrepit Empires with unhappy ethnic groups within them. Keeping things the same would only cause something worse. I would disagree. Communist revolution was inevitable. Putting it off a few years wouldn't help much, and frankly it would take a lot larger effort than you seem to think. I'll note that you put the qualifier 'successful', and that there was no assurances of any sort of 'success': Stopping one revolution won't prevent one in the future, and the logistics behind trying to keep Russia under control are mind-boggling, even moreso for that time period. The fact of the matter is that the Russian monarchy had been going down the tubes long before then. Any sort of intervention would have only delayed an inevitable revolution from the people. Unless you believe that Wilson was going to install his own government (Which would, almost assuredly, move from a democracy to a dictatorship), I don't see how him intervening would do anything useful. I can't even think of a White Russian leader that would be strong enough to keep Russia under control if we assume that the Tsar was gone. Those are pretty pathetic arguments against the 14 Points. Ex 1: Secret Treaties. Your argument is irrelevant, because he's right. Convoluted secret assistance treaties were part of the problem at the time. Even if they were secret, Britain and France fought against putting that point into the treaty. If they were just going to have secret treaties anyways (Because they're secret, like you point out), why even make a point of keeping it out? Probably because Britain and France would have upheld it because it's part of a treaty. Ex 2: Freedom of the Seas. Again, it's a fine concept. Britain disagreeing about it is not an argument against it, though. It only further proves that it was not Wilson who screwed things over, but the Europeans themselves. Ex 3: Self-Determination. I'll point out again that the entire cause of World War I was due to states like this not existing and the ethnic tensions between the conquered peoples and the ruling people. While there was violence in these states (Violence with the Czechs, though? I don't remember that. They were a remarkably stable government...), it wasn't that that fucked up Europe. Leaving them within a dying Austrian Empire wouldn't have done any better and would have only caused to spark the same violence over and over, especially with . The entire idea behind creating these states was to prevent such problems, and largely it worked. The biggest problem state was still Yugoslavia, but places like Poland and Czechoslovakia were successes. I hope you're not going to honestly argue that keeping these states within these Empires would have helped things when it caused the problems we are talking about, and continued to cause problems in places like the USSR (In particular, the Ukraine). The problem with Wilson is not the 14 Points. Yes, they were a little bit idealistic, but they were along the right track: Free Trade, Free Seas, No Punishments, Forum for World Government. The problem was that he was completely unprepared for a Europe that didn't want to change its own bad habits. Wilson deserves some blame, but the vast majority of the blame should be put on Britain and France. It wasn't a joint effort, it was Wilson getting bitched down by the other powers. I'll agree that's a fault, but I refuse to say that it was his fault that Europe was fucked up. What caused later conflicts were things that Wilson specifically argued against, like War Guilt, Reparations, and Military Sanctions. Those were things that were vigorously put forth by European powers, and Wilson was unprepared to see countries that had caused such a war with such things before go so gladly go right back into it. Wilson had good intentions, but lacked the ability to put those intentions to work. The blame for all the post-Great War fuck-ups lies on Britain and France, especially when it comes to screw-ups like the partitioning the Ottoman Empire. Well, that's wrong, and writing it in caps doesn't make it any truer. They left, but they came back to re-sign. They are signatories, they were they for a while, and their presence was not helpful, especially since they were there simply to grab land.

No, you're wrong. The 14 Points never really made it off the table. Secret Treaties, War Reparations, War Guilt... point to point, they were either watered down into nothing or just completely ignored. Wilson's problem was not that he ruined Europe: Europe did that to itself, and did so with a smile. His biggest problem was that he wasn't prepared for the negotiations at all. That's all I can fault him with (Which, in itself, is a pretty big fault). But give the devils their due: The people who fucked German up was not Wilson, but the French, the Italians, and the British. They are the ones who wanted to carve chunks out of people. And the Russian Civil War? You can't blame that on him. Russia was going down the tubes long before that. Trying to keep the Romanovs in power would have required a massive effort, one much larger than we could summon up at the time. The blame for the Bolshis lies solely on the Russian Monarchy itself for having absolutely inept monarchy and military. If he had even stopped it then, it would still come up later. There was no way that monarchy was going to survive after that war, with the country the way that it was.

"Inexplicably, XM subscriptions in Canada have tripled in the last week. What the hell is going on up there?"

You mean 8 win, 1.48 GA, .930 Chris Osgood? Because I'm fairly certain that he isn't the problem. o.0

I'd agree with most of what you said, though the Wings get called plenty. Normally they're great on the Penalty Kill (I think they've consistently been in the Top 5 for the last decade or so), though their Short-Handed Goals are down a bit (Normally they have a bunch of them. This year, though, Chicago has 5, tied with Ottawa for the Top Spot). They certainly get enough of them for Homer, and with half of them being deserved.

Ha! That reminds me of the Market Garden (Was it Market Garden? I think it was...) level in Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. God, that was just atrocious. You couldn't move without a Nazi sniper nailing you in your forehead, half the time they are firing THROUGH the roof due to clipping errors, making them unhittable to you, and God help me if there isn't a damn Kraut in every Dutch closet. I gave up on the game then and there. Other frustrating levels: Xen in Half-Life: These were just irritatingly bad. Not really tough, but after having such a great game turn into a jumping puzzle was frustrating. Any British Mission in Call of Duty: I really like Call of Duty, but man if the British levels didn't absolutely blow ass. Daytime Pegasus Bridge was stupid as hell and the cliche spy mission were even worse. After having a pretty well-paced chase scene in the American Campaign, we get a stupid Panzerfaust-fest for the second one, along with a ridiculous "Shoot down the Stukas!" objective. So, so horrible...

Why can't the Wings beat the 'Hawks? Why?! I mean, I wouldn't mind it if they only games were lost all season were purely to the 'Hawks (Until we met them in the Playoffs, of course), but it's so weird that Detroit can beat what look to be better teams, and yet Chicago seems to have their number. Man... Then again, as long as we continue to beat the Predators, I'll still be happy. God, I hate their fanbase so completely...

If you have 15 bucks to spend on a graphic novel right now, do so on Architecture and Morality, by Brian Azzarello and illustrated by Cliff Chiang. Ever wonder what happened to all those weird Silver and Golden Age characters during the DC Crises? They're right here, in this metatextual classic. So many great characters, with some of the greatest banter ever. It's amazing that insanely stupid character concepts can turn so awesome when they are used to break the 4th Wall.

Czech crucified me one time for making this argument. Well, it's true. I mean, at the time the Soviet Propaganda machine was making Russia look ridiculously good, since they were cut off from the World Economy long before the Depression happened. I mean, Communism looked pretty good at the time. Without some radical stop-gap maneuvers, the US wouldn't have lasted in that state. I mean, it's not the same as saying FDR's policies would have been good outside that situation (They didn't stop the Depression or lead us to new Golden Age), but at the time, they gave the people stability and hope. We needed that.

Give him credit for Denver and Dallas, too. Though I'd say that Anaheim was a lucky break in that they weren't all too good until Giguere carried the team one year and Disney finally sold them. That's when they really became a threat. Let's judge the success of Bettman-era teams: Relocated Teams Dallas Stars: A good move, and it did revitalize the team. Points for that. Colorado Avalanche: Arguably the most successful move, this went into a market that is still pretty strong today. Phoenix Coyotes: They probably should have just stayed in Winnipeg. It doesn't help that the Jets had never been that good. :\ Carolina Hurricanes: I suppose you could call them a success now, or at least not a failure. Expansion Teams Columbus Blue Jackets: I'm not sure they're a success... but they aren't a failure. Maybe a little better than the Hurricanes. Nashville Predators: I can understand the reasoning behind it (Catch autoworkers from Michigan following the factories to Tennessee, catch them with their own team), but it just never worked out, even when they WERE successful. Tampa Bay Lightning: I'd say they've been just lucky more than anything else. They got bought by a good owner who turned the team into a competitor. Anaheim Ducks: Similar to Tampa Bay. San Jose Sharks: A good move which really covers a broad market in Northern California. Florida Panthers: Seriously, do we need two teams in Florida? I can't see how this seemed like a smart idea. Atlanta Thrashers: Never been a big draw. Just not a good market for it. Minnesota Wild: While the North Stars managed to fail, I still think this was pretty much a no-brainer. I mean, a few of those teams are really recent successes (Anaheim, Tampa Bay, Columbus might be the same), while others were just never-weres (Florida, Phoenix, Atlanta). I think the biggest indictment is that it's not expanding to Northern markets that could have done much better, staying with failure markets in the South. Eh, I think it's better to go for a Northern team. Hamilton and Winnipeg are great choices. Otherwise, a completely uncontested market (Like Las Vegas) would probably be a good choice. You're right on both counts, though I think we've adapted to a) while b) is so painfully obvious. After re-reading the terms, there's a much more likely chance that they'll move now with that contract in place. There's nothing in it that holds them in Nashville against relocation. Eh... I can understand where you're coming from, but Federko was ridiculously consistent, while Lindros (even though it was due to injuries) wasn't. Lindros had one 100+ points season, while Federko had 4 and was consistently in the 80-90 point range throughout his career. The same can't be said for Lindros, who only had 3 80+ points seasons and none of them consecutive. At the very least, Federko's stats would dictate that he deserves a spot. I don't think Lindros' play or stats dictate a spot. Even if its due to injuries, I don't think you can ignore his inconsistency throughout his career. While he might have been "It" for a little while, Federko's incredible consistency would warrant more of a spot than Lindros' short-lived prime. Honestly, at some point you do have to change it back from the Hall of Very Good back to the Hall of Fame. I think this is a better time than any to do it.

I agree that his Northern market moves have been successful, but he seems more intent on finding inroads to the South which just aren't there. I mean, if he concentrated on getting teams in the North, I think we'd look at him in a much different light.

I always thought of him as the accidental socialist, in that he did institute what could be considered Socialist programs (NRA is... well, that's probably his most extreme legislation, but it deserves mention) but it stopped, as you say, what could have been a social revolution. He never really ended the Depression, but I have to say that he stabilized things and certainly made people feel a helluva lot better, which held us over. I want to hear this argument.

I think for Bettman, it's a matter of defending his reputation. Nashville an excellent example of teams moving or being created in dismal markets. Someone trying moving to Canada, when Bettman has moved two Northern teams already to Southern States (Winnipeg to Phoenix, Hartford to Carolina), could be interpreted by him as a big "Fuck you, you're wrong"... which, in all honesty, he definitely is, but he doesn't want to hear that. At least, that's how I take it. Chicago gets a pass in part because of bad ownership, being an Original Six team, and also the fact that Chicago has proven to draw before. It just needs a team above horrid to do it, which seems to be happening now. That's mismanagement in a town that will sell out if you give the fans a chance and a team. Lindros in the HoF? I'm torn. King makes a good argument, but I keep looking at him and putting him with some of the other people in there, and I can't. It's not the Hall of Very Good, it's the Hall of Fame. I just find him lacking too much overall.

Also, it looks like the Preds are staying in Nashville. Does anyone want to do a pool on how long it is before Basillie sues the NHL?

What a great waste.

Is there any President more universally loved than Teddy Roosevelt? I mean, you have Washington, and then maybe Lincoln... but after that, are there really any others?

The only person who really deserves credit for bringing down the Soviet Union is Brezhnev, really. And Reagan's a fine, inoffensive President. I always wondered how Eisenhower got rated so high as well. I mean, you have the Interstate Highway Act (Or whatever it was called, I can't remember it off the top of my head), but I always thought that his utterly ignoring of most of the social problems at the time would put him lower. But he's always in the upper-middle range of Presidents. *Shrugs*

I never said it worked out ALL the time. But it's entertaining to read about nowadays, isn't it?

Naw, you're forgetting the earlier part of the century. Wilson, Harding, Hoover, and maybe even Coolidge (depending on how you look at him). I'd put Reagan past the half-way point, but only by a spot or two. We are also forgetting LBJ, here. There are a lot of controversial president's nowadays... I think that's why Kennedy always gets a fairly high rating, even though he really didn't do that much, or succeed. He just was a pretty face that occupied the spot for a while... but in comparison to some of the other Presidents out there, I suppose that's an improvement! And I kinda liked Jackson's craziness, as it did sometimes work out. At the very least, he completely shut up the 'nullification' crowd with a toast and a recruitment ad. How can't you love that?

I'm not sure that Bush clears the top ten mark. He's pretty bad, but there are a lot of Presidents who are far worse. I don't care what you think of the Iraq war, Buchanan not challenging secession is on a whole different scale of "What the fuck are you THINKING?!" At the very least, I can figure out numerous reasons (Good and Bad) why Iraq might seem like a good idea. But allowing secession and letting the South take Union armories and such without any sort of fight? What the fuck. I'd put people like Hoover, Harding, Wilson (Not just a racist, but he was completely inept at handling Versailles. It was nice that he was an idealist, but he was too up his own ass about and his failure at Versailles caused a multitude of problems in the future), Taylor (Who was a retard), Grant... really, that entire stretch of guys after Van Buren but before Lincoln were probably worse. Hayes could be considered worse. Andrew Jackson, depending on whether you think he's absolutely insane or not, as well as his attrocities concerning Native Americans. Really, I'd put Bush at the lower end of the middle of the pack, where I'd put most of the recent Presidents. Between 25-29, approximately.

While A and C are tempting, I have to say B. Going by the formula given there, Barry Sanders must have had God-like powers or something to do what he did.

God, is anyone still reading this? This is easily the comic story I've read. Ever. I can't think of anything that has epic scale, great characterization, and insane surprises. I don't even think the Ultimates compares to this.

Anyone feeling the Central Division revival right now? Detroit's playing the best hockey in a long while, Chicago and St. Louis have suddenly clicked, and Columbus is starting to get off its feet as well. Outside of Nashville (Which isn't surprising after the firesale it had in the off-season), things look pretty good.