Kevin Smith Reviews Avengers: Endgame

SPOILERS!

 

10 Thoughts From The @sask_ndp #yqr Coronation Park Nomination Meeting #skpoli

Shea and I went to the Sask NDP’s Coronation Park Nomination Meeting tonight and it was wilder than we ever expected – over 400 rowdy people crammed into Thom Collegiate’s auditorium to hear from three candidates – April Bourgeois, Noor Burki, and Chris Gust – and choose the person who will represent our home constituency in the next provincial election.

Shea’d picked her candidate ahead of time but I legitimately hadn’t decided who I was going to vote for as there were things I liked about all three of them. (As is often the case in contests of this type, you end up wishing you could put all candidates in a blender to combine the best qualities of each.)

But, since shoving human beings into large blenders is illegal, I decided I’d go to the meeting and make my decision based on their presentations, their shows of support as well as the impression I got from any pre-meeting contacts I had with the candidate or their teams as well as what I could find out about them via social media and online.

Another interesting thing to think about in contests of this type is the “constituencies within a constituency” and where candidates might draw the bulk of their support from – people who share a connection via their line of work or their involvement in the labour movement or their ethnicity or where they grew up or where they went to school or their community profile or where they volunteer or from former neighbours and so on.

For that reason, it wasn’t 100% certain but it was pretty clear that there was a large presence of people from Noor’s ethnic community at the meeting which seemed like it might make the final result a foregone conclusion before we even got out of the registration line.

Still, my understanding is that something similar happened in another recent nomination contest where one minority candidate had a lot of visible support but he ended up losing because many of those people were not resident in the constituency and only there for support but ineligible to vote.

But in the end, that wasn’t the case this time. The votes were counted and Noor Burki was chosen as the next Sask NDP candidate for Regina Coronation Park!

Anyhow, I can’t do a post like this without creating a list so here’s…

10 Random Thoughts From The Regina Coronation Park Nomination Meeting 

  1. A long time ago, someone told me that all other things being equal, he would always vote for the person who helped bring the most diversity to the table as it helps make for better decisions when you hear the voices of people who represent the entirety of your community. I’ll admit that piece of wisdom was in my mind as I walked into Thom and was thinking about who I might vote for in light of the the changing demographics of this constituency, this city and indeed, this province.
  2. One of the strongest presentations of the night was…the young woman who nominated Burki.  It made me realise that the future of this constituency is bright with engaged young people like that (let alone that she might’ve been a better candidate!) 🙂
  3. I don’t officially attend political events with my “librarian” hat on (I did however have my “Read” hat on!) But I must say it was rewarding to see so many patrons I serve at my branch attending this event as well.  Civic engagement = cool!
  4. I had to chuckle when I thought about how Noor Burki was the only candidate I hadn’t met or even heard from ahead of time.  But with the turnout he generated, it was clear he didn’t need to get my vote (call it the Barack Obama or the Jagmeet Singh or even the Ryan Meili v 1.0 strategy – if you expand the voter pool enough by selling new memberships, you don’t need to focus on convincing existing members quite as much, especially in a small constituency-level contest.)  Of course, it also made me realise that the tables were turned and this is often how minorities must feel – ignored, not needed, disregarded. (Good to be humbled every once in a while!)
  5. Another thing that’s not the be-all and end-all of my decisions in constituency-level votes. But I do have a personal bias towards candidates who actually live in the constituency they represent so that was a plus for Burki in my eyes as he is someone who has lived here with his family for the past decade.  (I’m not 100% positive but believe the other two candidates grew up in Coronation Park and had deep family roots here but no longer live in the constituency.)
  6. Not sure if this was planned ahead of time or requested from the floor.  But after the rules were explained in English, a gentleman got up and explained the voting rules in another language which was another nice touch to acknowledge and recognize the diversity of the crowd.
  7. There were small variations I noticed in each presentation that I found revealing  – who acknowledged that we were meeting on Treaty Four territory, who made a point of thanking the NDP staff and/or the organizers of the event and/or the members of the constituency association.  (I didn’t get to the candidate tables but Burki’s was apparently giving out samosas which was a great idea as well.)
  8. I can’t remember the last time I heard Ryan Meili speak in a setting like this but as someone who was conscious of the criticism that public speaking wasn’t Ryan’s strength when he got into this gig (hey, look what I wrote a decade ago, nearly to the day.) But tonight, Ryan gave an absolute barn burner of a speech that had the crowd pumped.  I don’t know if it was done consciously or not but he also did a couple things in his speech that showed he’d gotten even better at reading a room which has always been a strength of his in the past.
  9. Kudos to Steven Lloyd who ran the meeting efficiently but also with a good dose of humour which I appreciated as compared to some of the more humourless Chairs you might encounter in meetings of this type.  Along the same lines, Warren McCall did a great job with his financial appeal.
  10. This is pretty hypocritical coming from me because I freely admit I sat on my hands with regards to my involvement in the constituency during the last election when I was unhappy with the choice of Leader and direction of the party.  But I’m hopeful that supporters of all three candidates will find ways to stay involved and help win back this long-time NDP seat!

Music Monday – “So sing to me/Your sweet song/Saskatchewan/Where I belong”

Saskatchewan” – Zachary Lucky

 

20 Things Nobody Saw Coming in Avengers: Endgame

The best part of seeing a big tentpole movie on opening weekend is that you can go on the Internet again without fear of seeing SPOILERS:

Saturday Snap – Not Sure If This Is A Picture Of Me Looking Back in Time or Looking Forward?

Pace and I looking at a Buffalo Rubbing Stone near Shea’s parents house…

Friday Fun Link – Online Apps as 80’s Gadgets

A designer reimagines how various popular web sites would look as 1980’s gadgets.

Throwback Thursday – #tbt – How Did I Get Here? – #10 – Shea

Most couples meet through friends or dating sites or at church or the bar.  The story of how Shea and I met is a bit more random.

Her parents were at a funeral and happened to be talking to someone from my hometown.  They mentioned their daughter was starting university in the fall and needed a place to stay.

The person said they knew of two families from my hometown that owned condos and rented rooms.  One was owned by a couple who were farmers and teachers (and coincidentally, their son was a good friend of mine and I had actually lived in their condo first before my parents decided to follow their lead and buy a condo that my sister and I could live in while we were in University, renting out the extra rooms to help pay the mortgage.)

The other condo they knew about was owned by a farmer and a nurse.  That was my parents and since Shea was going to be studying to be a nurse, they decided to call us first.

I’m not sure if it was the first day they came to see the condo or move her in but they still joke about me sitting on the couch, and in a very “college” moment, eating macaroni and tomatoes right from the pot, possibly even offering her parents some! 🙂

Shea moved in in 1997 which means I’ve known her for 19 years, nearly half of my life, but we obviously didn’t start dating right away and our relationship was strictly platonic.

There’s a bit of a soap opera part in here that led to us dating that I’m not going to get into but at any rate, we started dating a year or so after she moved into the condo (I make the totally inappropriate joke that we started dating after she couldn’t pay the rent one month but the reality is that I’m always happy that we started our relationship as friends – going to movies, playing cards, eating meals together – and it grew from there.)

Our dating was sort of on the down low at first (kids today have a different term for it – “Friends with Benefits”!) with her parents still asking “When did you start dating?” occasionally and my mom corralling me at lunch one day to ask if I was dating my roommate which I denied even though it was basically true.

Our relationship continued to solidify and grow though we moved at a pretty slow pace (hmm, maybe that’s what inspired the name of our son?).

Shea convocated from nursing in 2001 and wanted to move to Alberta for a bit to have the experience of living in a different province/bigger city.  We had some serious discussions about our relationship at that point since I was very happy in Saskatchewan.  But luckily for Pace and Sasha, we ended up moving to Calgary together and ended up staying there for three and a half years.

While living in Calgary, we got engaged at Fairmont Hot Springs in 2002 and married in Mexico in 2003.  We moved back to Saskatchewan eventually and had Pace in 2007 then Sasha came along in 2013.

We’re recently passed fifteen years of marriage and for the most part, it’s been pretty good.  What works well is that we’re of a similar mind on the big picture stuff – politics, religion, finances, etc. (not to mention we both work in caring professions which shows a similarity in personalities as well).  But we also complement each other well.  Shea’s the detail-oriented, logical planner and I’m the big picture dreamer; she tends to keep things serious and on track, I tend to be goofy and prone to spontaneity.  To co-opt the popular metaphor, she’s the destination and I’m the journey.

After getting married on the beach in Mexico in March 2003, we had a reception in Shea’s small hometown for a couple hundred friends and family who couldn’t join us in Mexico.

Neither Shea nor I are huge dancers and were sort of dreading the obligatory “first dance”.  While reading about weddings online, I’d come across the idea of a “removal dance” instead of a “first dance”.

The idea is that you invite all married couples to join you on the dance floor.  The DJ plays a song (I had a perfect one in mind where each verse details the growing depth of a couple’s relationship through old age with a beautiful melody and a darkly realistic lyric) and after each verse, your MC asks people who’ve been married “less than one year”, “less than five years”, less than ten years” and so on to leave the dance floor.

(And holy shit, until reading about this song on Song Meanings, I’d *never* realised that the conceit of starting each verse with “Line One is the time…”, “Line Two is the time…” had a double meaning as he’s not just describing the start of a verse in the song which is how I’d always heard it but also how each verse captures something that causes wrinkles (lines) to appear over time!  So much for my English degree helping me learn to analyse texts!)

We hadn’t planned it out ahead of time but Shea and I left at the first announcement (along with a couple septuagenarians who’d remarried late in life but had only been married to each other less than a year!) then stood on the edge of the dance floor watching other couples dancing – friends who’d married a few years before us and whose weddings we’d attended, cousins and gradually older aunts and uncles, our respective parents, and others in the crowd.

Again, we hadn’t planned it this way but it worked out perfectly when the final verse was introduced by our MC saying “Could everyone married forty years or less leave the dance floor” and it emptied except one long-time couple from Shea’s side and one long-time couple from my side.  (Quick note – I like how many weddings now post signs saying “Take any chair – we’re not about sides” which is a positive change from the old way of thinking of each family having a “side” of the hall or church or whatever.)  We went back on the dance floor and joined the two longest lasting couples at our reception to finish the dance together in a big circle.

Life will bring many joys, much sadness and the odd curveball but here’s hoping that even if we’re not big dancers, Shea and I are the last ones dancing at some young couple’s wedding someday a few decades in the future!

 

The Most Amazing End to a Hockey Game I’ve Ever Seen?

The Flames are out but I’m still watching NHL playoffs, especially with a bunch of games going to game seven and/or overtime which is always exciting.

But I don’t think I’ve ever seen a sequence like the one that happened last night – Vegas Golden Knights leading the San Jose Sharks 3-0 with about ten minutes left in the third period.  Normally, that’s game over.  But after a post-faceoff cross-check puts the Shark captain off-balance and then a different Knight collides with him, leading to a freak injury for the Sharks’ captain, the Knights player who gave the initial cross-check gets a 5-minute major and is tossed from the game.

In the ensuing power play, the Sharks rally to score a record-tying FOUR powerplay goals on one penalty not only catching the Knights but passing them.

There’s now maybe four or five minutes left but after a near total collapse, the Knights press back.  Finally, with less than a minute remaining, the Knights score to tie the game which leads to overtime.

Then, after an edge-of-your-seat, back-and-forth overtime, just as the extra period is nearing its end, an unheralded Sharks player who’s not played much so still has fuel in his tank, takes a pass and skates in to score and win the game.

Immediately there was lots of controversy about the penalty call – was it a reactionary call because of the injury?  Do refs “manage” the game with how they choose to call/not call penalties (that post-face-off cross-check is a common move and it was only because of the injury that the major was assessed.  And does it matter that the cross check didn’t directly cause the injury, only indirectly?  On some level, did the refs think a harsher penalty would help control a heated game where the Sharks captain was just taken off injured?  And that it wouldn’t have such a significant outcome since it’s still incredibly rare to score 3+ powerplay goals on a 5-minute power play.  Put it this way – the average team scores on about 20% of their power plays, the Sharks scored at an 80% rate on this single power play.) And ultimately, can any series hinge so much on one play or one penalty?  The Knights have to own that they collapsed – letting in so many goals but also letting go of a 3-1 lead in the series generally plus they didn’t capitalize on a (make-up?) call that put them on the power play late in the game, let alone score in overtime?

For me, I think the ultimate issue is that refs in the NHL are as inconsistent as in any sport in the world.  Rules are applied differently at the start and end of the season and at the start and end of the game, they’re applied different in regular time and overtime, they’re applied differently if players are injured or not (that’s probably understandable to some degree), they seem to be applied differently depending on which teams are playing or sometimes which players are involved (“reputation” calls).  And most egregiously, there appears to be a different set of rules in the regular season and playoffs where hockey’s old-school, conservative culture demands that refs “let them play” and so players can slash, hack, trip, punch and yes, cross-check, with very little risk of being penalized.

Anyhow, watch this…

…and here’s some commentary by The Hockey Guy:

Finally, this…

 

Flames Flame Out: 10 Thoughts on An Early Exit

After their best season in a generation and winning the Western Conference, I was super-stoked for a long playoff run by my Calgary Flames.

Unfortunately, they flamed out in the first round losing to the 8th seed Colorado Avalanche in five games, shutting out the Avalanche in the first game but then losing four in a row.

(Believe it or not, the Flames actually did better than the Tampa Bay Lightning who finished as the overall top team in the regular season but were bounced in four straight games by the 8th seed in their conference, the Columbus Blue Jackets.)

Now that a few days have passed, here’s a few thoughts:

  1. A Tale of Two Seasons – Regular and Playoffs
    The Flames (and Lightning) dominated the regular season but lost to teams who had been in playoff mode for a month already having had to battle to gain that last playoff berth right until the end of the season whereas the Flames and Lightning, having clinched a playoff spot a month ago, were probably coasting a bit.  In an age of parity, that’s not a good thing.
  2. A Game of Inches
    Momentum is a nebulous thing but the Flames, who dominated the third period in the regular season more than any other team, ended up having two of their four loses come when they gave up a lead within the last three minutes of the game.
  3. Flames Best Players Are Invisible
    The Flames had five players hit the 70-point plateau (maybe unequalled in the NHL this season?) yet in the heavier, closer checking of the playoffs, Gaudreau, Monahan, Lindholm, Tkachuk and even Norris Trophy favourite, Mark Giordano were all but invisible.
  4. Redemption of Mike Smith
    Ironically, the Flames’ biggest worry going into the playoffs wasn’t their skaters but goaltending.  Mike Smith had been inconsistent all season and was known for letting in easy goals at bad moments in the regular season (bringing back memories of Brian Elliott whose mistakes basically lost the Flames their first-round series a couple years ago.)  The Flames had arguably played much better in front of backup David Rittich who was becoming the de facto starter but the coaching staff went with the competitive veteran with playoff experience in Smith and he rewarded their faith with a strong performance even setting NHL records for not just one but two games of 50+ shots against in a single playoff series.
  5. James Neal 
    The Flames signed perennial 20-goal scorer, James Neal, as a highly desirable free agent this year.  But perhaps playing in two Stanley Cup finals in a row – first with Pittsburgh and again with Vegas last year – left little in his tank.  All year, he was criticized and all year, others defended him – “it’s a new team – he’ll find his game”, “the season’s half over but given his history, he won’t be denied”, “okay, regular season over but he’s made for the playoffs.”  Except he wasn’t and he ended up with the humiliation of being a healthy scratch in Game Five in an attempt to shake up the team.
  6. Coaching
    Bill Peters was a bit of an unknown quantity as a newly hired Flames coach after some unheralded time in Carolina.  But he led the Flames to an amazing finish, is in consideration for Coach of the Year honours, and was celebrated for making the right moves at the right time all year long – whether forward, defense, goalies, call-ups or whatever.  But sadly, in the playoffs, he seemed to get schooled.  When Smith was shitting the bed in Game Two, why not put Rittich in for a period just to see how he (and the team) respond?  Why wait so long to bench Neal or bring in Valimaki?  Why not give other young forwards an opportunity to draw in and bring some energy that wasn’t coming from veterans?  I also wonder why teams don’t take the opportunity to mix up lines more during the regular season, even when things are going well, to see if that will provide different chemistry and balance?  For example, Sam Bennett who had an average regular season but was probably the Flames’ best player in the playoffs was elevated to the top line in Game Five when things were “do or die”.  What if he’d been put on the first line during the regular season a bit, just to see how he might perform instead of going in blind?
  7. Nathan MacKinnon
    After being drafted first overall in 2013, he was seen as, not exactly a bust, but not a generational talent like so many other first overall talents get branded with.  But MacKinnon simply dominated the series and is now being called one of the Top 5 (if not Top 3) players in the league, at least in part by his performance in this single series.
  8. At Least We’re Not The Oilers?
    It took approximately seven minutes after the game ended for my Calgary-living, Edmonton Oiler-loving cousin to send myself and my Edmonton-living, Calgary Flame-loving cousin chirpy messages.  It devolved into the usual arguments back and forth between Flames and Oiler fans – the Flames have made playoffs more lately but the Oilers have won more series in total, Oilers have a record for playoff futility only making the post-season once in the last twelve years but their 1983-84 edition was voted Best NHL team of all-time, they’ve won five Stanley Cups to the Flames single one but the Oilers have also had a similar number of #1 draft picks (meaning their team was one of the worst in the NHL) while the Flames have never picked in the Top 5 in their history.  On and on.
  9. Adversity Builds For Future Success?
    People point out that the Flames had to lose in the 1986 playoff run to be able to win in 1989, the Oilers had to lose to the Islanders before they could win, the Capitals were perennial playoff chokers until last year when they weren’t and so on.  The Flames have a great, dynamic young team.  Whether they can convert that into playoff success in future remains to be seen but here’s hoping.
  10. The Only Sport With Two Rulebooks
    On one hand, I’m never a fan of blaming refs as I do believe they do their best to be unbiased, in a fast-paced environment and even the odd bad/wrong call should be negated over the course of an entire game.  But it’s also frustrating that hockey is the only sport in the world where there seems to be one set of rules in the regular season and then, those are often ignored in the post-season in favour of “letting them play” or “not influencing the game” (ironically, if you let things that should be penalties go, you *are* influencing the game.)  In my dream world, penalties would be called consistently whether it’s regular season or playoffs, first or third period, regular time or overtime, a Canadian team or an American team, if a player is “whining” or “being respectful”.  Unfortunately, right now, that’s exactly what it is – a dream.  (And don’t get me started on the lack of clarity on goaltender interference, not just in playoffs but in the regular season as well.)

This *was* a penalty against the Flames at a critical point in the game putting them down by two players for two minutes…

This was *not* a penalty against the Avalanche when Johnny Gaudreau was constantly hooked, slashed and held to slow down someone who is otherwise one of the most dominant players in the game (at least when the rules are enforced as written)…

Music Monday – “You feed your addiction/With your crystal meth/And I plea for your life/As it takes you to your death”

Broken Window Serenade” – Whiskey Myers