James Hope Howard Liveblogs the CBC Feed of the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics Closing Ceremony

9:50 AM

Well, good morning, sports fans! Hey, how 'bout that hockey game earlier today, huh? Canada can breathe easy for the next four years, now, after a Gold Medal game that was very exciting and not at all anticlimactic.

(cough)

We're live from (the CBC broadcast feed of) Fisht Stadium for the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics Closing Ceremonies, so I'll do my best to keep up with it; let's you and I experience whatever's about to happen together, as the natural pairing bookend to my previous 2014 Opening Ceremonies liveblog (as well as the opening and closing ceremonies from 2010).

They've just flashed a notice that the Ceremony proper isn't for another 27 minutes -- I presume they're starting it at fourteen past the hour, as they did with the opening -- but I'll kick off from the top of the hour and we'll figure it out from there. (It's all just montages, right now, so, y'know.)

10:00 AM

The hockey and curling montage taking us into the top of the hour featured The Tragically Hip's classic "Blow at High Dough", which really just made me miss the Rick Mercer vehicle Made in Canada. Man, I liked that show.

Exciting footage of athletes walking! So many athletes! So much walking!

We join Scott Russell and Diana Swain -- what, where're my Ron & Peter, I was looking forward to those two -- Scott & Diana in the Fisht broadcast booth, who kill some time by listing the upcoming rebroadcasts before throwing it to various interview snippets from Canadian medal winners. Including an appearance by the Jennifer Jones team, which was nice; I lit out bright and early to take in that St. Vital Curling Club watching-party event earlier this week, it had a breakfast buffet at 6:30 AM and the bar open at 9:00 AM, it was super great.

Back now with Scott & Diana, who plug Collider Films before now throwing to -- aww, man, another The Olympians feature? Erghhhhh can we just get to the vaguely terrifying Russian wackiness already, c'mon hurry it up already

Manitoba Links Weekly: Hashtag Melnigeddon, Everyone Will Like Me Again If I Sue This Student Newspaper, Russ Wyatt is Sheegl-Shaming, and Here's a Stolen Skeleton Statue to Watch For (ManLinkWeek S02E16)

The Mr. Bones mascot skeleton statue has been kidnapped, and it is currently being held for ransom, and the ransom is a pizza. Winnipeg is a live-action cartoon. [ via ]

Hello and welcome to Manitoba Links Weekly! God, what a week.

This week on Winnipeg Internet Pundits we began the task of chipping away at the wall of newsworthy topics this week; I also played a couple of thematically-appropriate tunes during the hour, and I'm interested to know whether you the listener think they helped or hindered the flow of the show, so let me know by email or in the comments below what you made of it.

James Hope Howard Liveblogs the CBC Feed of the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics Opening Ceremonies

9:50 AM

Hello out there, sports fans!

I'd done this for the 2010 Olympics' opening ceremonies (and for their closing ceremonies as well), and while the Sochi Olympics are a tad more... problematic, I figure I may as well keep an eye on the ol' zeitgeist and see what happens.

The hosts for this CBC coverage are Peter Mansbridge and Ron MacLean, who are doing their best to fill time until the ceremony proper; interviews with various CBC personalities, footage of a Russian police choir singing Daft Punk's "Get Lucky", y'know, standard fare to build up to the top of the hour.

10:00 AM

There will come a time when "Fish Stadium" ceases to be funny to me, but today is not that day.

Manitoba Links Weekly: The Province is Cutting CFS Funding Alongside the Phoenix Sinclair Report, and You'll Probably Need a Drink After Reading About It (ManLinkWeek S02E15)

Hello and welcome to Manitoba Links Weekly!

It's been another big week, hasn't it? Another busy ol' week. Let me fill you in briefly on what I've been up to! When last we left off I was headed to the final Mondragon Party, set on braving the crowds --

Manitoba Links Weekly: I'm Cold (There There), Maybe 2014 Won't Suck, An Industrial-Looking Heart in the Sky, and Here's an Anthropomorphic Cartoon Lady-Perogy Praising Jesus (ManLinkWeek S02E11)

Thus far I've spent the New Year increasingly debilitated by a seasonal cold-flu-something -- sweats and chills and coughing fits and sapped strength and the whole kit-'n'-kaboodle -- and in my intermittent bouts of mild feverish delirium, there are times when I am forced to question whether something is real or imagined. You can imagine the trouble that I am having right now with this picture.

But no, it's real, and it's spectacular: CTV News producer Joe Olafson took this photograph at the corner of McPhillips & Aberdeen, and it really is quite the fascinating smorgasbord of intrinsically Winnipeggian character notes. [ via ]

Happy New Year, everyone, and welcome to Manitoba Links Weekly! For the coming of the new year and the passing of the old I'd written a year-end retrospective poem, as one does, as you do.

So welcome to the new year! Talking about the weather may not sound like the most exciting way to kick off the year's first ManLinkWeek, but oh, it's been a special kind of weather:

156 Lines About 26 Letters: Your Local 2013 in Review

This is a thing that I do, sometimes. Once a year, say, give or take. This is a thing that happens.

You and yours have a safe and happy New Year's tonight, and I hope that you will enjoy:

156 Lines About 26 Letters: Your Local 2013 in Review.

[---]

A is for Audit, the fire hall brief
that ended both a CAO and a Chief;
though its Arrival took a lengthy vacation,
it blew quite a hole in our Administration.
For how long they'd delayed in hopes we'd forgot it,
one really could not have asked more of the Audit.

B is for Blueprints, doctored when Bought;
in a vast web the home Buyers were caught
when the inspector claiming their plans certified
also went through his own company on the side.
When a conflict of interest inquiry was led,
the inspector in question retired instead.

C is for Centreport, swiftly improving--
just two more years 'til it maybe starts moving!
It straddles two RMs; the Province has banned
the City from simply annexing the land.
In striking a waste plan success was implied,
but they still can't run water on the Rosser side.

D for Delete, as a web owner might;
y'know that "Responsible Winnipeg" site?
A 'grassroots' lobby, council'd later decry it
when its ownership traced back to Katz and Russ Wyatt.
The site's now Deleted -- which is too bad, because
we'll never know what "Another Initiative" was.

E for Employees; the City has many,
but when asked for numbers we can't produce any.
Pressed for an official staffing amount,
Mike Ruta said it'd take two months to count.
Could be in the millions! Could be in the tens!
Awkward for the budgets on which this depen's.

F for Fringe Fest, where this year the plays
most Famously Featured some ass mayonnaise;
each year seems to bring more bizarre escalation
in the struggle for key word-of-mouth motivation.
When scoping out shows, 'tis usually best
to just smile and nod politely at the Fringe Fest.

G is for Gaming Centre; not a casino!
Oh, it may offer blackjack and roulette and Keno
but when First Nations wanted casinos, we'd stated
no more because Winnipeg's too saturated.
True North's 'Gaming Centre', though -- just the right fix!
It's not favouritism, it's just... linguistics.

H is for Harvey, the Smith everpresent,
delighting in making his peers' lives unpleasant
by impishly doling ward allowance treats,
by cheering Joe Chan and by renaming streets.
On t-shirts they print him, in pumpkins they carve he--
most lucky for folks trying to rhyme things with "Harvey".

I for Ignorance of do-gooder whites,
and Infidel Atheist awkward soundbytes;
an IG Field launch that clogged every road,
Inner-city centres left to implode
and that one burst of Swandel wisdom to live by:
"blah blah I me-me I, me-me I I."

J is for Jurors, twelve people in all
who were grabbed around lunchtime at Cityplace mall;
rare statutes allow for sheriffs to so trouble you,
should you be in line at that one A&W.
Only one was needed, so don't be unnerved;
this wasn't how Justice is usually served.

K is for Keyser, who chided the mayor
for bad politics and ethical beha'iour;
despite this, to depose him she found no basis,
largely 'cause Chan filed in all the wrong ways-es.
And with that decision she put down her foot,
rend'ring Joe Chan's case and budget Kaput.

L for the Liberal Leadership race,
marked by internal outrage and disgrace
that a fake Bob Axworthy Twitter should exist;
no one seemed to care, but it hurt, they insist.
When a parody Twitter is the most that folks know,
there's nowhere but up for your party to go.

M for Mayoral, a living Museum
of candidates crowding to make sure you see 'em.
Bowman, Fielding, Havixbeck, Orlikow,
Steeves, Wasylycia-Leis -- and still you know
even more names may yet emerge, in the event
the Mayor's polling stays around twenty percent.

N is for Ninety, our main airport Route,
a most fascinatingly ugly commute
but Nothing, the Commerce Chamber did resolve,
that seven million bucks of fence wouldn't solve!
Their Chamber Way, alas, was proposed in vain,
so we'll still have to see those two blocks of back lane.

O is for Overrun; it's bad advice
to promise a "Guaranteed Maximum Price"
when the claim's accuracy is sorely diminished
by learning the blueprints weren't yet one-third finished.
Our new police HQ still nowhere near done,
thus far it's an $80-million Overrun.

P for the Provincial tax, PST,
a wound self-inflicted by the NDP --
support for the hike perhaps partly impeded
when they couldn't commit to a reason it's needed.
The Public thus far has declared this as folly,
the worst Polling seen by the Party since Pawley.

Q for how Quietly city heads left;
a vanishing Taz left the townsfolk bereft.
We've still no straight answers why Douglas was fired,
or Sheegl paid $240K once "retired";
Winnipeg's elevated to an art
its conspicuous Quiet when top brass depart.

R for Ray Rybachuk, quite the newsmaker;
a Royal-Albert-restaurant-tantrum-taker,
Teasers-chainsawer and associate of hoods,
one day found mysteriously dead in the woods.
His legacy surely will gain second look
should we ever write an Elmore-Leonard-esque book.

S is for Specialty Plates; that's our jam!
With five this year alone, we've been going ham;
one for Goldeyes, one for Fish Futures too,
one that only added "Bienvenue",
one for Curlers, and one for old car buffs.
And look for more next year! These still ain't enuffs.

T is for Target; it's finally here!
That drive to the States always seemed so severe—-
but what's this? Our interest immediately depleted;
CANADIAN prices! Ugh, we feel cheated!
No, sir, this new Target just ain't our scene.
(But it's nice that you folks made this Zellers so clean.)

U is for UFC, Ultimate Fighting;
a pay-per-view coming seemed very exciting
in a place with such loose violence and fashion credos
that sweatpants with TapouT shirts count as tuxedos.
Fans packed the rafters, a full sellout draw,
for what might be the worst card the sport ever saw.

V is the Roman numeral for five
years since Brian Sinclair was last seen alive;
found dead waiting at HSC in '08,
a '13 inquest is an oddly long wait.
And only now they note -- well, isn't that weird! --
their security footage of his death's disappeared.

W, Water, the talk of the town
when the taps began pouring a rainbow of brown --
all hues, tints and shades, a full range of corrosion
from 'lightest of beiges' to 'fecal explosion'.
But if we want people to move here, perhaps
we should be able to offer clear water from taps.

X is the crossing-off of things departed,
a full list won't fit but here's one that I'd started:
Kelekis, Gio's, the Tallest Poppy too,
the Parkade, Arkadash, Boo at the Zoo,
Dalnavert, Paddlewheel, Paddlewheel Queen--
this goes on for twelve lines, but you get what I mean.

Y is for Years, as 140 we turned;
for commemoration the cityfolk Yearned
but our brave leadership instead welcomed the day
by stonewalling quietly 'til it went away.
By 150, perhaps, we might honour our name
with a swelling of pride and not a vague sense of shame.

And Z is for Zombie Walk, this year now laid
to rest if our governments weren't getting paid
for the trouble of people downtown, such a mess --
there's no greater curse in this town than success --
so the route held nary a Zombie in sight,
downtown quite ironically dead on that night.

[---]

Happy New Year, everyone!

Manitoba Links Weekly: We Should Send Thunder Bay a Nice Card, Diabetes as Plot Resolution, More Fights Than Points, and Here is Burton Cummings Performing His "The 8 Days of Christmas" (ManLinkWeek S02E09)

The soulfulness in each and every delivery of "Five pounds of hash~!" makes my heart grow three sizes. And that camerawork! I'm so glad that we live in a world where this exists.

Hello and welcome to Manitoba Links Weekly! We've almost made it all the way through 2013; I'd say "let's enjoy it while it lasts", but this year turned vicious on me in every imaginable way, so honestly let's just kill it as quickly as we can.

This week on Winnipeg Internet Pundits we had some fun with that new Tourism Manitoba slogan -- and some fun flag-related follow-up discussion! -- as well as some looking back on top stories of 2013 and looking forward to top stories of 2014. Oh, and some music! That's a thing I've learned how to do on the soundboard now, swap on the fly from music to talk, it was pretty rad. Fine seasonal discussion, fine seasonal music -- a fine show all around, well worth your ear.

Anyway! No time to waste. ManLinkWeek!

Manitoba Links Weekly: Underwhelming Hockey at Discount Prices, I Think I Missed Dim Sum Day, Boot Scootin' Boogie for Keyboards and Drum Set, and I Don't Smoke But I Own a Cheeky Protest Contraband-Cigarettes Shirt Nonetheless (ManLinkWeek S02E08)

Hello and welcome to Manitoba Links Weekly! My word, time flies these days.

This week on Winnipeg Internet Pundits -- ha, that episode title, though -- this week we went into surprising depth on local store and product gift-shopping recommendations, discussed the merits and drawbacks of the hypothetical Unicity II, and expanded on some particular points of the preliminary civic budget. Including this very fine local blog post, which I heartily recommend you check out. Good times!

Oh! Also earlier this week, I added the 92 CITI-FM compilation "Winnipeg's Rock 'N Roll Christmas, Volume II" to the Slurpees and Murder Record Club; it's a two-decade-old rarity well worth your investigation, so give it a spin or two.

And if this post seems a little shorter than usual, it's because I've driven 2,200 kilometers across nine degrees of latitude in the past three days. Y'know, as one does. Release the ManLinkWeek!

Manitoba Links Weekly: Winnipeg Doesn't Look a Day Over 139, Punk Reviews of Churches Makes Me Wish "Winnipeg" Were a Recognized Adjective, Also Featuring Beer and Yelling, and Here's a Harvey Smith T-Shirt (ManLinkWeek S02E03)

Remember how thoroughly I stressed calendar weeks when relaunching this format? Well, this is why. (Hey, the week ain't over yet!) Hello and welcome to Manitoba Links Weekly!

Yes, it's been another big and busy week in local culture and current affairs, so let's start with the brand-synergy segment to cover what I'm leaving out of the post this week. This week's episode of Winnipeg Internet Pundits covered the University of Manitoba Southwood lands' first renderings, the mysterious Provincial rejection of the City's new-home-builds fee proposal, and a delightful interview with Barley Kives about his Stuck in the Middle: Dissenting Views of Winnipeg collaboration with Bryan Scott. (F'real, if you haven't already bought this book by now, I'm assuming it's because you intend to ask for it for Christmas.)

Also! Thank you once again to Scott Price and CKUW 95.9 FM for having me on the airwaves this past Tuesday afternoon; we did a special mystery show about our favourite bassists and bass recordings, and it was a blast and a half. You get me talkin' about music, man, it's hard to get me to stop.

Ah, but enough off-topic rambling out of me; time for on-topic rambling! ManLinkWeek, engage!

I'm Working on a Super Neat Thing That I'm Keeping Secret for Now, But I Will Definitely Let You Know When It's All Set

The basics of this post are pretty well covered by the heading -- curse my devotion to accurate and descriptive titles! -- but I'll round it out a little for entertainment's sake.

Yes, as is usually the case when I vanish for any longish period of time, I am at present Up To Something -- capital-U capital-T capital-S, Up To Something -- and it would spoil the eventual surprise if I were to wax about it in detail right now.

Now, I can't guarantee you'll be as enthralled by the results as I've been so far; there is a chance, as there always is with my output, that you may find the end product strange or silly or unremarkable. But, man, I'm enjoying it! I am definitely enjoying myself in putting it together, which is usually a reasonably good sign, and I hope that you will enjoy it too upon its eventual release.

(Going forward, you may wonder at each eventual thing I produce: is this the thing he meant? Assume as your starting point, gentle reader, that it is not unless I note otherwise; rest assured that I will make a capital-V capital-B capital-T Very Big Thing of it when I tell you what it is.)

So there's your curiously non-specific progress update: I am working on a thing, and I am quite enjoying working on a thing, and eventually you too will be privy to the thing that I am working on.

Thank you for reading that! Thank you for indulging me. And just so's you don't feel that this post was a wasted click: here is an entirely unrelated but entirely delightful eight-minute compilation of Carl Carmoni footage, sure to brighten your day as surely and as swiftly as it always brightens mine.



BIRRRRRRR-DAY

Watch this space, true believers; I'll see you around soon!

The 2013 Stanley Cup Finals Begin Tonight

Hey, long time no see! I've been quietly scratching away at some longer-term projects since the last post, but this subject material has its own particular time frame, so let's get right to it. (There's hockey to be watched, after all.)

(1W) Chicago Blackhawks vs. (4E) Boston Bruins

This really does feel like it could be a once-in-a-lifetime clash-of-the-titans affair, which is why I fear it could turn out to be disappointingly anticlimactic. (There've been some real dogs of series thoughout the history of the Finals, and it does look like we're about due.)

On paper, of course, it's fascinating; both groups feature absurdly deep forward corps, twenty-to-thirty-minute hallmark shutdown pairs on defence, a whole bunch of big dudes who will punch you if you try anything, and wildly successful if probably overperforming goaltenders. (Granting that Quick had been the best goaltender going into the last round, and, uh, yeah.)

Both teams are also as healthy and well-rested as could be considered realistically possible this late in the year; both Conference Finals went quickly, Boston's had kind of an easy ride in the last series and a half or so, and (as I'd mentioned last time) Chicago didn't actually seem to start applying themselves until game ten or eleven of the campaign.

One would normally be tempted to take special teams into consideration, but it'll be amazing if there's one god damn power play goal this whole series (however long the series lasts). Both teams have been phenomenal at penalty killing and astonishingly lousy with the man advantage, and we've hit the point in the year when you can only reliably draw a non-offset minor through procedural malarkey. Like, one team would have to specifically put too many men on the ice, and then that extra guy would have to get the puck in his own zone and shoot it out over the boards. That'd be the only way that someone on the extra team doesn't mysteriously also collect a penalty on the play, the way one does this time of year by getting punched at the side of the net or tied up along the boards on a line change.

Also: this time two years ago Boston entered the Stanley Cup Finals with a playoff power-play success rate of one in ten, just barely squeaking the eleven-per-cent mark, and then won the Stanley Cup anyway. So enough about special teams.

The Bruins have just finished dismantling what could have been considered the ideal offence, and the Blackhawks have just finished dismantling what could be considered the ideal defence and goaltending. It's a fun contrast.

Alas, while my loyalties have historically been pretty obvious -- RAY EMERY FOREVER -- I fear that this may indeed come true and bring Boston its second Cup in two years.

It'll be harder to beat the Blackhawks than the Penguins, unquestionably; it couldn't be easier, surely, at any rate. The Penguins' offensive strategy was to stand still, leave Crosby to skate into quadruple coverage, and then go collect the puck out from behind Vokoun or Fleury depending on how badly the game was going; the Pens' top scorers were Brandon Sutter and Chris Kunitz, because the Penguins' only scorers were Brandon Sutter and Chris Kunitz. So Chicago is far better poised to crack the Bruins' blue line, being able to activate defensive rushes and all, but that can only catch a team unawares so many times in a row.

Note that Detroit did as well as they did against the Blackhawks because they were able to shut down Chicago's top forwards, as Boston will surely aim to do (and did with the consensus best forward roster in the world), and because they consistently kept the puck away from Chicago, as Boston's infuriatingly strong faceoff percentage may ensure.

Shutting down forwards bears further mention because, if the previous three rounds are any indication, it's not an option against the Bruins. The top line of Lucic, Krejci and Horton -- and surely any opponent will do its best to shut down the other team's top line at all time -- the top line of Lucic, Krejci and Horton are +13, +14 and +21 through sixteen playoff games, with thirteen, fourteen and twenty-one points respectively. No no, read that again: Nathan Horton is +21 across sixteen playoff games. Which, I mean, excuse me. I beg your pardon. How is that a thing.

I could be wrong -- I hope I'm wrong! -- I wish I were wrong more often -- but I'm going with:

What I'd Want: Chicago in seven, including at least one line brawl.
What I'll Guess: Boston in six, including at least one shutout.

Hockey, everybody! I'll see you back here in a day or two, with some... unique... Winnipeg content. Until then, true believers!

The NHL Stanley Cup Conference Finals Begin Tonight

Well, hello there, everyone! I've just returned home from the closing ceremonies of the Canadian Library Association 2013 National Conference and Trade Show (henceforth "CLA Conference", because I'm not typing that out again); if you've been wondering about my almost total disappearance for the last four days, that's what I've been up to. Learning all day! Socializing all night! Rising and shining bright and early the next day for more learning! SLEEP IS FOR WORK WEEKS.

I'll be watching the official website for the eventual arrival of the conference slides and other related materials, and then -- hopefully, if things don't get too busy around here -- sharing some photos and impressions and whatnot.

Ah, but there I go, carrying on about unrelated matters when there is pressing business to tackle. Playoff predictions! I've been two-thirds right on them so far this year -- which is sort of an overperformance against previous years, actually -- and it's probably all downhill from here, but I intend to try nonetheless!

Eastern Conference

(1) Pittsburgh Penguins vs. (4) Boston Bruins

You know, I think I've finally learned a valuable lesson out of all of this: stop pretending that the Rangers are ever a legitimate contender. (It made for a pretty impressive playoff-time magic trick, though, what with roughly a gazillion dollars suddenly becoming invisible and all.)

Somewhat amazingly, the forward advantage for Pittsburgh isn't as dramatic as you'd initially expect; Boston is as big and nasty as ever, has enough breakout speed reserved to catch the Penguins' defence off-guard, and can put up a whole pile of points in a hurry. (Would you believe that the leading playoff scorer so far this year is David Krejci?) If they were hanging three to five goals a night on Lundqvist, what's to stop them lighting up Vokoun like a Christmas tree? And if the Bruins, who have the goaltending advantage to begin with, manage to chase Vokoun, the Penguins will feel obligated to give franchise goalie Fleury a try, and... yeah, no. That'd end exactly the way you think that'd end.

I can't speak for America, the Boston Marathon bombing still fresh in everyone's minds, but the Penguins are markedly the sentimental favourites up here in the North, and it's certainly plausible that they can advance to the Cup Final if their goaltending holds. Having said that, the consensus among people I've talked to is that A) most everyone in Canada wants Iginla to win a Cup, B) nobody anywhere likes Jeremy Jacobs, and C) the universe is cold and unfair. SO:

What I'd Want: Pittsburgh in seven.
What I'll Guess: Boston in six, and at least one Penguins star is sidelined by a dubious hit sometime during the series.

Western Conference

(1) Chicago Blackhawks vs. (5) Los Angeles Kings

(Yes, I realize that this game has started before I could get home. DON'T TELL ME WHAT'S HAPPENING YET)

Be honest: the way that Game Seven unfolded, you thought the Joel Quenneville Curse was kicking back in, didn't you? I totally did. Those last five or ten minutes of gametime, especially... that one call, had me mentally preparing to watch a man unravel like a yanked sweater thread at the merciless cruelty of the fates that torment him.

What finally did pull Chicago through, despite an excellent shutdown series from Detroit, is their abundance of available firepower; the Hawks' defence core can manufacture additional offence with ease whenever they like, and their forward depth is just gross. So gross. The grossest.

(That said, full credit to Quenneville for adjusting as wisely as he did; that recomposition of the Toews-Kane-Sharp top line and Keith-Seabrook defensive pair for Game 5 turned the series around and saved his season. Probably also his job, too, the way the year's gone for coaches.)

They'll be up against arguably the best defence, and certainly the best goaltending, in the Playoffs to date; that said, however, I don't believe the Kings have enough left in 'em to hold Chicago off. If they'd closed out the Sharks earlier and had the extra few days of rest, it'd be a different story -- but with Chicago no less rested (who haven't even really seemed to start exerting themselves until a week ago, remember) and proving scarily capable of busting defensive schemes open, I think Quick will only be able to hold them off for so long.

What I'd Want: Chicago in seven.
What I'll Guess: Chicago in... ahh, what the heck, let's give 'em seven.

OH GOD HOW IS IT ALREADY JUNE

Round Two of the 2013 Stanley Cup Playoffs Begins Tonight

In fact, it's already starting -- don't tell me what happens! -- so I'd better get this on the record tout-suite; if I'm going to get my guesses wrong, I should at least come by it naturally.

Prediction time~!

Western Conference

(1) Chicago Blackhawks vs. (7) Detroit Red Wings

I wasn't thrilled about correctly picking Detroit, but yeah, the writing was on the wall when the Ducks turned out to have an average age of like eighty. I was watching that series the whole time like "Yo, hold up, is that Tony Lydman? F'real? Is that Radek Dvorak? Is that Sheldon Sou--Sheldon Souray's still alive?" When you make Detroit look young, man. Maaaaaaan.

So we get the big Original Six matchup, and a conclusive one at that, given the realignment next season and all. (Unless both teams win their respective conferences and meet in the Stanley Cup Final, but that seems... increasingly unlikely in coming years.) So this is it, this is the big sendoff, aaaaaaaaand it'll probably be super anticlimactic.

It shouldn't be a full sweep, although Chicago did sweep the regular-season series against Detroit; the way that overtimes have been sprouting up this year, it seems reasonable that Detroit could sneak off with a win or two that way. And it's not that a Detroit upset is completely implausible; Detroit is always a threat to swipe some games, Howard can lock it down with the best of them when he's on his game, Datsyuk is still very nearly impossible to contain, and -- in case you had forgotten this particular tidbit -- this is JOEL QUENNEVILLE FACING THE RED WINGS.

But with that said, the Hawks are mad talented, good and rested after a short first round, not unfamiliar with how to beat Detroit, and probably very unlikely to overlook the Wings as a threat to their conference finals berth. Ergo:

What I'd Want: Chicago in five.
What I'll Guess: Chicago in six.

(5) Los Angeles Kings vs. (6) San Jose Sharks

Okay, so, that Vancouver collapse? Phenomenal. Oh my word. That was majestic. Like I'd said, the loser of that series is destined for an offseason shakeup -- not that I guessed the series right whatsoever or anything, but c'mon, like anybody called the Canucks being swept -- and the ignominious fashion in which the Canucks lost, coupled with choking against a team everyone else considers chokers, should mean a pretty wild 'n' woolly offseason.

(I love that the whole Canucks season was framed in terms of goaltending, and then come playoff time the goalies were fine but all of their skaters except Kesler were worthless. Whoops! Slightly different narrative than anticipated.)

ANYWAY. Let's talk about teams that are still playing, for the moment. I was impressed to discover that the Sharks have survived in their current -- not to say "doomed", but -- flawed incarnation long enough to build up a really solid younger core, fully ready to take the reigns when the old b'yes get put out to pasture. Logan Couture in particular isn't just a franchise player, he's the franchise -- but mention must be made as well of Brent Burns, whose transition from offensive D-man to power forward has been so wildly successful as to make Winnipeg fans seethe. He's like Byfuglien if Byfuglien were reliably good. Life ain't fair, man.

The Kings had a rougher time to the second round, but a lot of that may be the Blues being secretly way better than their fate suggests. (And part of it may be Quick giftwrapping and giving away Game 1. But, still.)

It feels like it's going to be a startlingly even series; the Sharks are well-rested, Niemi quietly levelled up when nobody was looking, and (perhaps most importantly) the Sharks suddenly choking in the third round would be way funnier than the Sharks suddenly choking in the second round. On the other hand, the Kings have all of the reigning-champion benefits with none of the usual fatigue, they can never be considered totally out of a game, their defence core is almost insultingly solid, and Jonathan Quick is probably actually a robot. Should be good! If you like lots of checking and don't mind really low goal totals -- San Jose may find it harder to score when the other team's skaters seem to be, y'know, trying -- you should get a real kick out of this one.

What I'd Want: San Jose in four. God, could you imagine? That would feel like the world's tilted off its axis.
What I'll Guess: Los Angeles in... mm, seven.

Eastern Conference

(1) Pittsburgh Penguins vs. (7) Ottawa Senators

One of my favourite things in life is being completely wrong about something. (One of my least favourite things is being completely right. I don't know what this says about me.) And if there's one thing that I was extremely happy to be wrong about, it was my original suspicions that the Montreal-Ottawa series would be boring and dispassionate. It's amazing how a grievous facial injury, vengeful sea-mammal-themed insults, a gazillion minutes in fighting majors and the complete implosion of one team can liven up a series!

Pittsburgh, meanwhile, seemed to get caught cruise-controllin' against the Islanders, who put up as courageous and tenacious a fight as anyone could have hoped for until the crushing inevitability of being the Islanders in the playoffs finally caught up to them.

The thing is, the Islanders did as well as they did against the Penguins by leveraging timely bursts of hockey talent -- plus getting to play against Fleury, y'know, there was that -- and the Senators made it to this second round by punching the other team in the mouth until they flipped out and forgot how to play hockey. And I don't mean to oversell the importance of the officiating, because you just know someone'll be like "AWW C'MON WHY DO THE PENGUINS GET SO MANY CALLS THEIR WAY UGH THIS LEAGUE IS RIIIIIIGGED", but I do think the laissez-faire the Sens benefitted from in round one isn't as likely to be there in round two. Let's say Chris Neil (because it's going to be Chris Neil) tries to stir something up after the whistle by jabbing the broken-jawed, concussion-prone, intensely-spotlit face of the franchise; how likely do you think it is that the refs let it slide?

Again, I'm not saying that the League will clamp the rulebook down because it benefits the Penguins; I'm saying it benefits the Penguins that the League will clamp the rulebook down. The NHL is, shall we say, very slightly concerned about how the public perceives its violence, and this series is very likely to be the most closely scrutinized.

Besides, the issue of penalties aside, the Sens' other ticket to round two is that they got to ring up a bunch of goals on a Carey Price that was awful by Carey Price standards. (He'd never given up six goals in a playoff game, until...) The Isles' almost-success came from getting to ring up a bunch of goals on a Marc-Andre Fleury that was... well, that was kind of what we expect from Fleury, actually, but -- anyway, Vokoun exists, and Bylsma is not stupid, and away we go.

What I'd Want: Ottawa in seven, with at least one more line brawl. Although I wouldn't mind Pittsburgh in seven either. Really, just give me seven games of this, y'all can do what you want with the last one.
What I'll Guess: Pittsburgh in... ehh, five.

(4) Boston Bruins vs. (6) New York Rangers

We who watched it unfold in real time, every single one of us, without fail, are all going to tell our grandchildren about that Boston-Toronto game seven someday. That was legendary, and spectacular, and the most Toronto-sports-ian Toronto sports event in what feels like forever (because it kind of was). As I noted on Twitter at the time, I felt bad about laughing, sure, but holy shit did I laugh.

Also:

Toronto Maple Leafs or Toronto you dumb fuck you lose after you have almost win go fuck yourself

— The Iron Sheik (@the_ironsheik) May 14, 2013

The Iron Sheik basically has the hang of being a Torontonian, it seems like. First the Jose Canseco mayoral bid, now this; if sports doesn't work out for them -- it never seems to, really, does it -- at least Toronto can remain secure in its Twitterverse star power. (You may laugh, but look at how Winnipeg's leadership behaves; they'd kill for that kind of C-to-D-level recognition. Or at least mint a whole lot of keys to the city for it.)

All the more impressive in Boston's game seven comeback victory -- and the reason I'm less inclined to call this round in their favour -- is that they pulled it off after some dismally anemic offence in previous games, and that they pulled it off despite being down to, like, three and a half defencemen left on the roster.

New York required all seven games, too, technically, but I wouldn't really count that last one as a game per se. (It's so perfectly, serendipitously fitting that the Southeast Division died on an unworthy third-seed getting bounced in round one and stinking it up on their way out.) The Rangers are healthier, play a cleaner style, have a captain who's basically a superhero, and are fully capable of winning any given game by potting a single goal and then just figuring it's taken care of.

It'll be competitive right to the last -- certainly more so than that other East series, I'd reckon -- but, unless the Bruins get some bodies back in a hurry, I think the Rangers will ultimately be able to grind this one out.

What I'd Want: New York in seven.
What I'll Guess: Eeeeegh--it's really tempting to still say Boston anyway somehow. But nah, New York in seven.

Playoff hockey! Yay!

Round One of the 2013 Stanley Cup Playoffs Begins Tonight

It's that time of year again! One of the annual traditions we celebrate here at Slurpees and Murder is making predictions for each round, then watching those predictions basically level out to .500 by the time the Cup is awarded each year. (So a lofty bar, as always.)

Yes, even though the Winnipeg Jets fell just short of qualifying -- for some reason -- the chase for the Cup remains as intriguing as ever. So let's jump on into this year's National Hockey League playoffs, starting in the:

Eastern Conference

(1) Pittsburgh Penguins vs. (8) New York Islanders

So let's start with the easy one, basically, sure.

Perhaps owing to the shortened, tightened nature of the season, this year saw a lot of really impressive winning- and point-streaks; the Penguins didn't have the most notable streak of the year, but when you're missing the consensus #1 player in the world for long stretches and win three-quarter of the season's games anyway, you are probably doing okay for yourself.

The trade-deadline addition of Iginla suddenly rendered the Penguins Canada's Team -- to the extent that they aren't usually, anyway, I mean -- and while the Penguins aren't necessarily the shoo-in Eastern Conference champions, they can very certainly be counted on to overcome the Islanders.

Fleury has his bad patches -- infamously so! -- but nothing too dramatic this year, to date, and certainly not to such a degree that he risks being outdueled by Nabokov, of all goalies. Besides posing a high risk for Lundqvist Syndrome -- they played him 40 of the 48 games this year, and a thirty-seven-year-old dude's only got so much in the tank -- Nabokov put up not particularly stellar numbers, faced an ass-ton of shots all year, and was one of only four goalies in the League to break the hundred mark for goals-allowed on the year.

(None of the other three made the playoffs. 'SUP PAVELEC)

It'd be a nice story if the Isles did well! That'd be nice for that franchise. But:

What I'd Want: Pittsburgh in six.
What I'll Guess: Pittsburgh in four, because really, who are we kidding.

(2) Montreal Canadiens vs. (7) Ottawa Senators

(Getting it out of the way at the outset: KARLSSON, HOW)

Every first round has a series that turns out to be a total disappointment; this year it'll probably be this one. I mean, I hope I'm wrong, I'm just warnin' you ahead of time.

It may get a little testy and gritty with one or two games to go, perhaps, but on the whole this may very well be some dispassionate, offputtingly gentlemanly hockey we're about to watch. It will be very technically sound, and probably very graceful, and we'll probably have to listen to Don Cherry complain about it at length. Let's manage our expectations, is what I'm getting at.

As far as outcomes--Anderson is having a madcap year, leading the League in goals-against (by a wide margin) and save percentage; I think it's reasonable to suggest that he's most of the reason the Sens made the playoffs, the team's regular season spent running some sort of grievous-injury sweepstakes. Is he enough to hold off Montreal, though? A year or two ago I'd have said yes, but holy crap have you looked at Montreal's stats this season. If Price is even passable in this series -- pretend for the sake of discussion that there's such a thing as being good enough in goal to satisfy Habs fans -- Montreal's depth should successfully outgun Ottawa, though not as easily as the seeding might suggest.

What I'd Want: Montreal in five.
What I'll Guess: Montreal in seven.

(3) Washington Capitals vs. (6) New York Rangers

Under regular circumstances -- well, most circumstances, really -- this'd be the easy pick for the upset, since winning the Southeast is very rarely anything to brag about. A long and storied history of lame ducks, the Southeast. (This is the last of it, and good riddance, I say. CONTROVERSIAL OPINIONS.)

This year, though, as Jets observers were very painfully aware of, the Capitals ended the season absolutely on fire. In the back twenty games of the season -- nearly half, this year, of course -- they went 15-3-2. Which, even taking Southeast opposition into account, is not a half-bad pace to take into the playoffs.

New York didn't do too badly for itself down the stretch either (as Jets observers also couldn't help but notice), but Ovechkin returning to form, or approaching it -- if he's not back to Peak Ovechkin, he's getting there -- is an entertaining force of nature to behold, and since he's not technically a Jets rival any more it's more locally acceptable to appreciate him. Right? The Jets have been stricken from the Southeast entirely, it feels like they've been a Western Conference team for a week now.

Electronic Arts predicts the Rangers to win it all this year, but they also predicted that the SimCity launch would go smoothly. So.

What I'd Want: Winnipeg Jets in five, truthfully, but--New York in seven.
What I'll Guess: Washington in six.

(4) Boston Bruins vs. (5) Toronto Maple Leafs

haaaaaa ha ha ha ha

Okay, this is an important character note about me: I'm a big fan of futility. Maybe it was a side effect of all the Wile E. Coyote cartoons I watched as a kid; maybe it's a product of growing up exposed to the previous Winnipeg Jets' playoff 'runs'; maybe I was just flat-out raised wrong. Those last two may be synonyms. Whatever. Continued, antagonistic futility -- a person or group wanting to beat somebody so badly, and never managing it -- is tremendously entertaining to almost everyone (else) involved, and I for one hope-slash-expect that it continues here.

What I'd Want: Boston in seven, and all seven games are SO HATEFUL.
What I'll Guess: Boston in six. The media coverage will be insufferable, but not as insufferable as if the Leafs win, so, hey.

Onward!

Western Conference

(1) Chicago Blackhawks vs. (8) Minnesota Wild

I'd alluded to the streaky nature of this season before, and I doubt I need to remind you how Chicago opened the year, because ye gads. Chicago had the #1 seed sewn up in, like, February.

I could go on a bit here about Chicago's qualifications, or try and play up Minnesota to build suspense, but -- well, it'd be a bit of a waste of time, wouldn't it? I'll be the first to publicly recant my dismissiveness if Dany Heatley or whoever suddenly explodes and sinks the Blackhawks, but... yeah. Nah. Chicago should crack Minnesota's defences long enough (or quickly enough, depending on how you look at it) to make round two without too much worry, a victory I will credit to Ray Emery whether he plays or not, because I am goofy like that.

What I'd Want: Chicago in five.
What I'll Guess: Minnesota could steal a one-goal game, I suppose, so yeah, Chicago in five.

(2) Anaheim Mighty Ducks vs. (7) Detroit Red Wings

Like many folks around here, it takes me a minute or two to properly discuss the Ducks because upon their mention I'm just like "YEAH TEEMU" for a couple minutes. Teemu's still the greatest, by the way. If you'd forgotten. (You hadn't.)

Detroit, as everyone can tell, just hasn't been the same since losing Lidstrom -- and what team would be, really -- but as much as I'd like to proclaim the Wings definitively outmatched and reassure myself that Selanne and the Gang have an easy road to round two... it's the Wings, you know? I've been burned by this before. The Wings have veritable oodles of playoff experience to draw on, a similarly grizzled coaching staff to match, and its fair share of gamechanging top-flight talent even still.

"All right, third line! Get out there, shut down Datsyuk!"
"Dats--really? How?"
"...punch him! I don't know, think of something!"

What I'd Want: Anaheim in four.
What I'll Guess: Somehow, despite everything, Detroit in six. DAMMIT DETROIT

(3) Vancouver Canucks vs. (6) San Jose Sharks

Perhaps surprisingly, given all of the dramatic potential outcomes in the East, this is the first-round matchup that I'm most looking forward to--not because of the potential matchups for the advancing team in later rounds, but because of the implications for the team that doesn't advance.

One of these teams is getting BLOWN UP in the offseason. This is it. This is going to be the end of the line for a perennial Western Conference powerhouse, piled high with talent, that somehow still never quite lived up to its playoff expectations; now we just have to find out which one. If you squint at this matchup, you'd swear this could've been a Western final any of the last five years or so. BUT NOT ANY MORE. Ominous chords, thunderclap, et cetera.

But before we get into the inevitable offseason drama, we should at least register a pick for the coming apocalypse one way or the other. Cory Schneider is questionable for the first game, and really for the whole first round; lucky for the Canucks they held onto Luongo, huh? Not on purpose, but you know how these things happen.

This one seriously could go either way, evenly-matched as it is between two wily but aging teams--but I'm going to give the edge to Vancouver here, who have had the better playoff pushes in recent years, and who will have the very rare luxury of going a playoff round without a goaltender crisis. SO:

What I'd Want: Vancouver in seven.
What I'll Guess: Vancouver in six.

(4) St. Louis Blues vs. (5) Los Angeles Kings

Above I'd listed the Montreal/Ottawa series as likely to be the biggest disappointment, but that's because this series is probably going to be exactly what you expect from it: grind-y, defensively sound, generally low-scoring affairs.

That prototypical Western Conference style does tend to make for close series -- uh, last year aside, I mean -- but, as much as we all do like that nice Steen boy around here, the storyline does seem set. One team is defending its Stanley Cup championship without the usual disadvantage of the shortened offseason, with its championship core still largely intact, and having swept the other team last year. The other team's hopes rely on Brian Elliott perpetually failing to remember that he is Brian Elliott. So... yeah.

What I'd Want: Los Angeles in seven.
What I'll Guess: Los Angeles in six.

Playoff hockey! Whoo!

Your Winnipeg Jets vs. Washington Capitals 04/23/13 Game Summary, in One Picture and Seven Words

HAINSEY

WHAT ARE YOU DOING



HAINSEY

STOP

Ask James Anything Month: Hopefully Worth the Wait

Whoof, it's been a while, hasn't it? Sorry, everyone! This March has been the most curiously busy of all the Marches I can remember -- which is, by now, getting to be quite a lot of Marches -- so my best of intentions on timely updates took something of a torpedoing.

Well, no sense in dwelling on it! Ask James Anything Month continues to roll, so let's gear up and dive back in.

cherenkov asks:

"Should I buy a motorbike or a snow blower?"

It depends on how much shovellin' area you're dealing with, I'd say, but unless your lawn falls somewhere between 'reasonable' and 'teeny' -- or unless you're really keen on shovelling, like you've worked it into your exercise regimen or something -- I'd lean towards the snow blower. A motorbike would be grand fun, I'm sure, but snowblowing season greatly outweighs motorbiking season around here, and the latter tends to drag obnoxiously into the former -- especially so in a year like the one we're having right now.

In fair weather, prepare for foul, as the saying goes. Thomas Fuller! Quotable dude, that guy.

Anonymous, 2013-03-11 03:45 asks:

"Hey James! Can you tell us... Who (or rather how) talk-bubbles were invented. Y'know, comicbooks & dialogue.
I'm a James too! "

Well met, fellow James! Thank you for your question.

From looking into it, I can tell you the how, but I can't tell you the who. There are recorded, surviving uses of the speech bubble -- and its earlier incarnations of speech banderoles or speech scrolls -- dating back to the fifteenth century (!), if not earlier, and as they get closer to the present day you can see the original scroll-shaped format (which made sense in the day, back when people read from scrolls, y'know) widen out to the bubble we accept as convention today.

That said, we live in an era defined by its unparalleled technological ease and its theoretically infinite access to information, and we (can't even handle attribution now. So -- as much as I may wish it were otherwise -- it seems overwhelmingly likely that the original funnypage innovators of centuries past, the first people to say "yeah but what if we rounded it off more like this", are forever lost to time.

On a comics-related side note: I only learned, like, maybe a week ago that the scribblings and strings of symbols used to indicate-but-replace profanity in a speech bubble -- I identify them primarily with Captain Bluebeard and Q*Bert, but I'm sure you have your own defining examples as well -- have a formal technical name, 'grawlixes'. The term was coined by Mort Walker, the original creator of Beetle Bailey and Hi & Lois (and those two properties share a combined universe, incidentally; I always love stuff like that), who wrote a satirical reference manual about comic illustration effects that was then used as a legitimate textbook anyway because the world works in mysterious ways.

I'm'a need to buy this for myself sometime soon, is what I am getting at. Hooray for comics!

Anonymous, 2013-03-11 11:11 asks:

"When you say "the Liberals are drifting dangerously close to Calgary Flames territory," do you mean they are dangerously close to being "Red Hot"?



Enjoy!"

. . . what

whaaaaaat

My goodness, that's... yes. That's something! That is most certainly a thing.

I'd never seen that particular video before, but it occurs to me now that each and every major hockey franchise must have at least one video like this lurking around. Right? Some terrible, wonderful, awful, amazing, probably cheesy, usually hilariously-dated promotional footage or music lurking around in their annals. (What, what's so funn--no, no, two Ns. Annals. C'mon, guys.)

So perhaps, similar to SBNation editor Jon Bois' recent bracket of March Madness predictions based on correspondingly-named warships, perhaps for this year's Playoffs (and they're coming fast!) I should try basing my annual prognostications on which franchises have the funniest promo footage behind them.

Having said that, the Flames probably aren't going to make the Playoffs this year, so it's just as well that we all watched that video now. RYEHD HAWT, RYEEEHD HAWT, RYEEEHHHD HAAAWWWT

Anonymous, 2013-03-11 11:15 asks:

"Don't you think, though, that if you had the most beautiful woman in the world draped off you, it would open all kinds of doors and opportunities for you? Tons of other beautiful women would be throwing themselves at you because if you go for it with them, it validates their lofty self-esteem. You'd likely travel the world for free, and never have to pay for a drink again. Bunch of other advantages if you really think about it.

Thanks for your replies, this has been fun!"

Thank you, anonymous inquirer!

I'm not saying that I don't see the theoretical strategy behind the second of those two options in the previous post; perhaps if I were a more suave -- suaver? -- holy hell it is 'suaver' -- perhaps if I were a suaver operator and a more singleminded social climber and a less monogamous sort, then yes, using a woman to pick up other women might seem more strategically viable.

Those modifiers taken together, however -- not to put too fine a point on it -- kind of add up to some pretty serious sociopathy, and even taking those into account for the original hypothetical decision I definitely still prefer the "passionate but top-secret romance" angle of Door Number One against whatever this Neil-Gaiman-American-Gods-two-man-con bullshit is that we got going on here.

"Mmmm."
"Mmm--m--wait."
"What?"
"Well--I mean, this is nice, but--what about [name of hypothetical beautiful woman in scenario]?"
"Huh? Oh! Oh, no no, it's fine."
"She's fine with you cheating on her?"
"It's not cheating, it--okay, that sounds really bad. I mean, no, it's just, it's not 'cheating' because I'm not actually allowed to sleep with her."
"...what?"
"I, uh--well, see, the rules of the deal--"
"The deal?"
"--were that I can't do anything with her, but I can use her to pick up women like you."
"...what the fuck."
"No, I mea--okay. I swear that sounded less predatory in my head."
"Really?"
"...No."



Someone back me up on this -- 'suaver' doesn't even sound like a word, does it? Say it aloud. 'Suaver'. 'Suaver'! Ridiculous.

YWGer asks:

"As many of us know, there are a diverse range of comments following online articles, most notably on the websites of CBC Manitoba, the Winnipeg Free Press, and the Winnipeg Sun.

Some people are of the opinion that for an online comment to be valid, it must be mature, moderate, politically correct, and written with passable grammar and spelling. In short, online comments should be dismissed outright if they do not meet these standards and branded as that of 'crazy internet trolls.'

Other people contend that while some comments raise eyebrows given the views advocated, the people who post such opinions nonetheless represent a notable subsection of the Winnipeg and Manitoba population. In essence, to truly have a finger on the pulse of the city and province, one must recognize that these non-PC opinions are shared by many and could also give us a sense of upcoming shifts in public opinion. In short, these opinions are therefore valid and serve a useful purpose.

It seems that the former is often espoused by professional journalists & columnists (and many 'established' bloggers who play Twitter footsie with them). Whereas the latter seems to be championed by a smaller few columnists and the online commenters themselves.

James, what is your opinion on this matter?"

Hmm! Hmm. All right, let me try and unpack this one for a moment or two.

I'm not entirely convinced that the quality of commentary can be expressed on a straight line like this, with "socially acceptable and well-written" at one end and "socially unacceptable and poorly-written" on the other; I think you'd need, at the very least, a quadrant graph -- X-axis for opinion palatability, Y-axis for language mechanics -- to begin fleshing out the whole picture of the online-comment universe.

Although then you'd also need separate graphs for named commenters and anonymous commenters, or at least separate colours for the data points of each, but then of course this particular approach also risks conflating subjective analysis with objective analys--aaaaaand, see, now, here I go again.

Okay. Let me start over. The problem as I see it with dividing all online comments into 'valid' and 'invalid' based on the successful ticking of four arbitrary checkboxes is that, relative subjectivity of each box aside, it turns that particular avenue of public discussion into a pass-fail approach rather than a grading approach.

Grading comments and commenters, I can roll with; take a gander at a given thread and you'll find you're able to (again, subjectively) stratify respondents into letter tiers pretty darn effectively. Comments that hit all of the criteria get an A, and comments that hit none of them get an F (or just deleted, y'know, depending), sure, but you have to allow for the inevitable existence of B, C and D comments as well.

Then -- again, subjectively -- one has to decide for oneself how each of the four criteria should be weighed. Are they equal? Is one box more important to check than another? Is a moderate with unspectacular spelling and grammar considered better than, worse than, or equal to a radical with excellent language skills? Is a poorly-argued comment that you happen to agree with considered better than, worse than, or equal to a well-argued comment that you disagree with vehemently?

Then, also -- who gets to make all of these decisions on everyone's behalf? And what steps does that person or group then have to take to properly counterbalance the editorial slant (not to say bias!) of their site? And even then, if one begins to consider how standards will differ across competing outle--aaaaaand, see, now, here I go again.

Okay. Dang. I fear this one may be a smidgen too complicated to tackle in a compilation post; I may have to come back to this idea, after the gimmicked month is over. Still, good topic, though! I'm glad you pitched that one.

Moving on!

The Analyst asks:

"Where does The Winnipeg RAG Review sit within YWGger's dichotomy? After all, it's prone to bashing racist, insane wingnuts, but does so in more in a rough edged, conversationally intolerant manner that might equally offend those with more genteel sensibilities. "



It's... it's not my dichotomy, man. I think you'd have to ask him about it yourself. (And, no, before you ask, I also can't tell you if he's a secret racist.)

And, finally:

Anonymous, 2013-03-15 12:12 asks:

"The most important question of our time: can a slurpy kill a fetus?"

research to this point remains incomplete and inconclusive regarding the potential effects of slurpy on babby

more science is needed



And, on that note -- thank you for reading this most recent installment of Ask James Anything Month! At my current output speed, we've got at least one more round of it before the month is through, so go ahead and Ask James Anything!

Ask James Anything Month: A Bumper Crop of Questions

Well, hello there! Looks like we've got quite the full slate of inquiries, so let's go ahead and jump right in. Ask James Anything Month continues!

mrchristian asks:

"Rabbits or ferrets ?"

I've got a theory, it could be bunnies.

I'm trying to think of a scenario in which I would go with ferrets here, and I'm sure they're lovely critters if you get to know them, but nope, so far I'm coming up blank.

If I were to own one of the two, I expect I'd go with a rabbit (and, me being me, I would be functionally incapable of naming it anything but "Bunnicula"), because I don't think I'd get used to that weird sideways poinging weasel movement that ferrets do. And this goes doubly so if cat ownership is factored in; I've heard anecdotal testimony from people who claimed to have successfully convinced a rabbit and a cat to coexist, but cats aren't big on sudden movements, and videos of ferrets seem to suggest that they're nothing but sudden movements, so that combination would probably end in disaster.

Now, if I'm misinterpreting the question and I were instead tasked with eating one of the two, I'd also go with rabbit in that instance. I mean, a ferret does kind of look like a naturally-occurring sausage, but whatever useable meat is in there would probably be subpar, and the primary motivation for eating one (outside of hunger and desperation, I mean) would be just to make sure that it can't try and eat you first.

So, yes. Bunnies, bunnies, it must be bunnies.

unclebob asks:

"[W]hat think you James about Paula Havixbeck? Is she such a trigger point of change or simply political debris?

And for your bonus point, why not gaze into your crystal ball and tell us if you see any political party movement that might trigger change?"

It's funny; if you'd asked me this time last year who looked to be the most noteworthy Council newcomer, I'd have said Brian Mayes -- who has proven solid and sensible, if a tad dry -- with little to no hesitation. But in that past year Havixbeck has made a late charge for that Most Noteworthy Council Newcomer title, the one that kind of doesn't exist, the award that I'm making up as a hypothetical right now.

(The rest of the field: Ross Eadie is most recognized for a profane email outburst, Thomas Steen's rare appearances in the public eye boil down to "hey fellers, heh, d'you folks remember when hockey", and Devi Sharma has been a living Kate Bush song.)

That said, Havixbeck's stock has gone up and down and every which way in that timeframe, so it's a lot harder to project her trajectory than it is for other members of Council; her current identity as an accountability champion for the little guy and a careful steward of public funds is indeed quite newfound, as just eleven months ago she was fully on board for the Mayor's $7-million waterpark grant right to the last whether Council had enough information on it or not.

Further to that point, her new one-woman-army attitude seems to have developed less from a natural evolution into the role and more from her increasingly acrimonious rebellion against the Mayor. (Not that distancing oneself from Katz has been anything of an exclusive practice, as late.) And the Mayor is known for making statements that are provably untrue -- Sam Katz could tell you that his name is Sam Katz and you'd still be better off having an auditor confirm it -- but when he characterized Havixbeck as "unpredictable" following her ouster from EPC, it was as close to plausible-sounding as anything he's said in months. (And, indeed, there've been rumblings to that effect as far back as April of last year.)

So it's hard to tell! It's hard to say for sure. We the audience can seem reasonably certain where Havixbeck stands right now -- her speech in January about being no one's yes-person and no one's tin soldier was, in professional wrestling parlance, a definitive face-turn promo -- and she'll be a distinct force to be reckoned with if she continues on her current path, but then again we've also seen the difference that a year can make. This time next year she might be arguing for a doubling of the police budget, embedded helicopters in every school, and a base on the moon. We don't know! We don't know. But it'll definitely be interesting either way, and interesting is exactly what I like to see.

As for any political party movements that might kick up some dust, I'm not terribly convinced that there are any significant status-quo shakeups a-comin'. Provincially, the Conservatives can't make the inroads into city-voter support that they need without alienating the zealots people like this within their base, and the Liberals continue to basically not exist. (A weak Liberal party directly benefits the NDP, not just in the "well, duh" polling sense but in the very real "federal Liberals endorsing provincial NDP candidates during provincial elections" sense.) Federally, meanwhile, the NDP is having the exact problems with its new Quebec MPs that most everyone predicted would happen after the last election, and the Liberals are drifting dangerously close to Calgary Flames territory -- stubbornly unwilling to begin the rebuild that they desperately need, instead sticking to the unsuccessful framework of years past and forever clinging to the hope that just one extra piece is all they need to take them to the top.

BOOM HOCKEY SEGUE

Anonymous, 2013-03-05 10:39 asks:

"Leaving former team scoring leaders aside (Hawerchuk, Selanne, etc) which former NHL Jet would be the best addition to the current Jets roster?"

Allowing for my incredibly transparent loyalty-slash-bias, and allowing for the obvious caveat that we're dealing more in archetypes than in specific player evaluations because of the inherent difficulties in comparing players between eras -- dude, OBVIOUSLY Teppo Numminen.

Goal scoring isn't really the problem with the current Jets, necessarily; goaltending, sure, but that doesn't really help us when the former-Jets were... never exactly an elite goaltending powerhouse themselves. No one's ever like "by god, what this new Jets team needs is a Rick Tabaracci!" (And y'all know I love some Bob Essensa, but man, he had some not very good years.)

As I was saying, though, about scoring -- so far the Jets have scored three goals in a game and then lost anyway four times this season, and that was within the first twenty games. Not good, guys. Not a good look! Not great.

So our current, sadsack Jets have a lot of issues, but we can cover a few of the more obvious ones -- special teams (because good lord), consistent effort (because younger teams, particularly this one, give up easily and quickly) and positional defensive play (because BYFUGLIEN WHY ARE YOU BEHIND THE OTHER TEAM'S GOAL, COVER THE P--DAMMIT ENSTROM, YOU TOO, GET BACK HERE) -- with a quietly excellent, positionally sound two-way D-man who could eat up twenty to twenty-five minutes a night and handle both PK and PP duties effectively.

Numminen! He's all we ever need on D!

H asks:

"If I saw you in person and wanted to say hello, how would you prefer I do so? I'm assuming not by shouting 'heeeeeey Winnipeg cat!'"

That would be a bit peculiar, yes. (Although not unheard of!)

But, nah, there's no real trick to it beyond the same general way to approach anybody; if you see someone in the wild who might or might not be me, something along the lines of "excuse me, are you James?" ought to work perfectly well.

And if it does indeed turn out to be me, bear with me if I seem a bit dazed for a moment or two; even to this day I've still never quite wrapped my head around the idea of people recognizing me as Guy From The Internet.

Anonymous, 2013-03-05 13:33 asks:

"Everyone speaks much too slow on Internet Pundits. Will you guys ever try to speak quicker? "

Hmm! You know, I had not considered this. This is good feedback! I can't speak for anyone else, but I could give it a shot; the difficulty, however, in my (limited and amateur) experience, is that radio may prove a difficult medium to rush.

Legibility is part of it, but not as big a part as coherence of thought; if I seem discombobulated and ungainly on the radio now, imagine what a trainwreck I'd be if I weren't also pacing myself just enough to think my statements through.

The Analyst asks:

"What are your opinions on Steve Keen's modelling of Hyman Minsky's Financial Instability Hypothesis?"

1936-37 Keynesian ruminations on investment motivation being synthesized and codified as a 1957-onward Post-Keynesian framework of capitalist unsustainability, being revived in the mid-2000s to address the influence of large banks on the world economy, and then ultimately being packaged as a Kickstarter project serve to quite thoroughly remind and convince me that I just really, really do not understand economics. Like I'm a Golden Retriever with safety goggles in a chemistry lab. No idea.

Avid S and M Reader asks:

"A classic question with no right or wrong answer...

You can have sex with the most beautiful woman in the world, but nobody other than you and her will ever be able to know about it.

Or

You can have the most beautiful woman in the world draped off you, holding hands with you, making out with you, etc, for all to see. Everyone assumes you are having sex with her, but, you never ever can actually have sex with her.

Which scenario would you choose? "

Thank you for your avidity!

The question may very well be a classic, though I must say that I've never myself encountered it before now, but -- real talk? That second scenario sounds legitimately awful. I don't even get how this is a dilemma.

Unless you're absolutely just consumed by what other people think of you -- and what kind of a way to live is that, really -- how would that second choice be anything but perpetually, tormentingly unfulfilling? A self-imposed blueball purgatory! The heck with that. Given the choice of being satisfied and letting people think I'm miserable, or being miserable and letting people think I'm satisfied -- well, as I'd said, it doesn't seem an overwhelmingly difficult decision. I never was one for the classics, I suppose.

Anonymous, 2013-03-06 10:01 asks:

"When are you going to have Woofers on Internet Pundits?"

WHO'S TO SAY WE DON'T



ha ha ha ha, naw, I'm kiddin', I'm kiddin'. I don't know how well the gimmick would fly on radio, though.

tofurkey asks:

"Middle name = Hope. Is there a story behind that?"

There is, but in thinking about it I am just now realizing that I don't know enough about it to tell it properly.

Or, rather, I don't know the backstory well enough to tell it; the details and mechanics, as they were, are simple enough. My parents never married -- and it probably explains a lot about me that I was brought up second-wave feminist -- so when I was born, they gave me my mother's last name, and my father's last name became my middle name. Hope! Of all things, Hope.

As I'd said, I've known the how my whole life, but I'm just now realizing that I never properly asked about the why. I was an inquisitive little child, but I doubt I was much of a cross-examiner. I did escape the then-ubiquitous hyphenation, however, so there's that -- I went to Laura Secord for elementary, trust me, ubiquity ain't overstatin' it -- and that's not to say that I hold anything against hyphenation, necessarily, but it really is the kind of trick that you can only do once. (Imagine a Ms. John-Jacob and a Mr. Jingleheimer-Schmidt trying to sort out what to name their kid.)

In short, I suspect that this explanation is probably far more prosaic and mundane than you'd been hoping, but there it is; I inherited my mother's last name, and Hope's my middle name. (This would later prove to be a rich vein of irony for a number of reasons, but we shan't get into those now.) Never seemed odd to me, but I know that it can take a while for people to get used to it.

"Hey, is your dad named John?"
"Yes."
"John Howard?"
"No."
"But--"
"I know. Just roll with it."

Graham asks:

"I'm playing black jack. I have 16. The dealer is showing an ace.

Do I hit?"

Well, I can't speak on your behalf, but I wouldn't. (Disclaimer: I am not much of a gambler, most of my experience and knowledge -- 'expertise' would be overselling it by a very wide margin -- coming from the 1993 Super Nintendo video game Vegas Stakes.)

To cover the easy outs on the question, let's assume for the sake of the exercise that I don't have an ace and a five, that I don't have two eights I could split, and that I don't have any other players at the table whose cards I can use to make a better decision.

With a 16 there are only five of the thirteen face values -- A, 2, 3, 4, 5 -- that can improve the hand, and eight -- 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, J, Q, K -- that will bust the hand and kill the round, or whatever the proper language would be for it, outright. (And interestingly, now that I look at it that way, the dealer ace has the exact opposite situation; eight values that would seal the deal at 17 or better, and five values with potentially undesirable outcomes.)

So -- again, not being much of a gambler -- since a hit is almost twice as likely to kill me as it is to save me, I'd stay on the 16. There's still only about a third of a chance that the dealer turns up ace through five to bail me out, but at least my hand will be alive long enough to see if he or she does.

I'm entirely willing to be wrong on this reasoning, but that'd be my advice, as far as our hypothetical blackjack scenario goes. And during your time at the tables, if anyone asks you to buy a diamond off of them, invest in their oil-drilling business, or let them wipe a stain off your shirt, don't take them up on it. Thanks, Vegas Stakes!

And, finally:

Anonymous, 2013-03-07 14:23 asks:

"Here's a question I've had in my mind for some time: Are you my cousin's evil twin? You're both music-playing librarians with (sometimes) politically-themed blogs. Come to think of it, last time I saw him he had a beard, so maybe he's the evil twin. Maybe you're both evil, never thought of that. Or maybe I'm just misinformed about the whole beard/evil formula.

Is it just coincidence that his former band's entire discography made it into the elite Slurpees and Murder Record Club? "

Well, mild hyperbole of 'elite' aside -- I worry sometimes that my longevity can be mistaken for success -- that last part narrows it down to... let me have a look here... Fast Orange, the Steinbach Bible Institute, the Folklorama Youth Choir, and the 1971 Saskatchewan Roughriders. And actually, when I put it that way, I suppose that does kind of sound like it'd be considered elite company -- but I can confirm that I am, as far as I know, not an evil doppelganger of anyone involved in those groups.

(A sidenote on Fast Orange: one of their former members had sent me a very lovely email after my blog post on them, and I didn't see it until about a month later because it got caught in my Spam filter. There is no graceful way to respond to an email upwards of thirty days after it was originally sent; I have felt guilty and awful ever since, even knowing that it happened inadvertently and automatically. The moral of my story, gentle reader, is to check your Spam folders regularly, and to check them very carefully.)

Anyway, in the interest of clearing up the slight and understandable bit of misinformation, let me just note: beards do not tip off alignment values one way or the other. Goatees are for evil twins. And I would look mad goony with a goatee, but then, I doubt I'd make much of a villain, either.

Antagonist, sure, I could pull off antagonist. But villainry, I fear, escapes me. I think I'm more around a Neutral Goo--oh, dude, we should all do our Gygax alignments! Yes! Yes. I mean, not right right now, this post is long enough as it is. But remind me to come back to that later.

Where was I? Ah, yes. Your cousin sounds like a pretty cool guy, from your description of him! Sounds like a good dude.

In conclusion: if I don't want to bog the whole process down, I should answer questions in the rotation more speedily in order to keep things rolling. So! The comments box awaits below, true believers; Ask James Anything!

Weekend(-ish) in Review: Here are a Bunch of Jets Valentines, a Handful of Civic Valentines, and Some Pictures of Omand's Creek on Louis Riel Day (Warning: Very Image-Heavy)

Well, hello there, stranger. Happy Louis Riel Day! And Happy Valentine's Day, too, if you were into that sort of thing.

As it just so happens, since we're on the subject of recent seasonal observances, I chipped in two or three jokes for the Sun's very special Winnipeg Jets Valentines gallery. (And knowing my luck, chances are that mine are all the ones you didn't like.) They're all quite worth your eyeballin', but here are some of the ones I really liked:

Fun With Data, Because People are Insane: A Look at the Site's 2012 Search Engine Hits

All of the following are complete and unedited search result strings; this is how people found me.

Yes, the end of the year previous and the beginning of the next meant a full calendar's worth of data to dig through, an opportunity that I dove into with gusto just as soon as it was available. This was not, however, a task that would lend itself to extended attention and prompt resolution; as you will discover shortly, prolonged exposure to the specifics of the Internet's interests and appetites is... an unwise decision, psychically.

Oh, it starts off reasonably enough:

156 Lines About 26 Letters: Your Local 2012 in Review

Happy New Year!

You'd thought I'd forgotten, hadn't you? I nearly had! Not going to lie, I nearly had. But when I've done a thing one year and then done it again the year after, it does seem reasonable that I come back for a third kick at it.

So let us celebrate the arrival of the year 2013 by making good and sure that 2012 is dead and buried behind us, in a little segment that I like to call:

156 Lines About 26 Letters: Your Local 2012 in Review.

[---]

A is for Arizona, where deals are made
that look shady despite the state having no shade;
be it mayors, CAOs or Shindico spouses
trading one-dollar companies or one-million houses,
our civic elites go down there to decide them
then make matters worse here by trying to hide them.

B is for Boulevards, also for Bravery
in fighting the City's -- cough -- modern-day slavery;
a Boulevard is a lawn's city-owned neighbour,
the mowing of which one man declared slave labour.
On this he thought himself a valiant crusader,
setting a court date for roughly a year later.

C is for Cellphone Tickets, on this list
because one such Cellphone turned out not to exist;
though the elderly man plead his case, the Police
doubled down on their claim in an odd press release.
When the Crown later stayed the case, leaving it dead,
the Police began chewing out the Crown instead.

D is for Douglas, the Fire Chief Reid,
with whom Shindico quite cheerfully agreed
to swap prime City lands for some cloverleaf crag;
"A deal is a deal", the Chief Douglas did brag.
In the scandals and audits ensuing since then,
Chief Douglas has never been heard from again.

E is for Emterra garbage collection,
delayed across any particular section
of the City by days, and by weeks in some spots
despite "final deadlines" (and of those there were lots).
City Hall won't disclose what fines had to be sent,
our collection remaining an Emterrassment.

F for the Free Press, the local broadsheet
booting many of its younger staff onto the street,
canning most everyone hired from '06 on down
and then killing the standalone weekly Uptown.
The Freep survives, for now, but it's less than inspiring
when the paper of record is exclusively Firing.

G for Golf Services, drumming up fear
when declared to be losing $1-million a year;
City Hall wanted courses marked for private sale,
which right from the get-go seemed destined to fail.
Public pressure led Council to back down from that call,
and an audit then said to keep them after all.

H is for Hellhole, or so said one 'star' --
the punchline of Rob Lowe walking into a bar
and finding no NBA on Grand Forks TV,
rekindling an old 'Peg insecurity
when any half-famous person says not to go
to our 'Hellhole' / 'Earth's rectum' / 'Communist Buffalo'.

I for IKEA, because, let's be hones',
you'd think the Second Coming had been upon us
to judge by the media coverage amounts,
which earned media fifteen-percent discounts.
The Sinclair Inquiry, or Idle No More?
Never mind that -- here's a furniture store!

J is for Joe Mack, Bombers GM,
impossibly still so after seeing them
have a terrible, horrible, very bad season,
with Mack being popularly held the reason
his handpicked group bombed out again and again --
52-0, 44-3, 42-10.

K is for Kapyong, but don't get excited;
the land's still a long way from being decided.
The courts ruled, at least, that First Nations deserve
consultation; some then feared an "urban reserve",
because there are still locals whose misguided passions
elicit some real ugly Kneejerk reactions.

L for the Lockout, which downtown still faces;
Langside suffered stabbings, shootings, arson cases;
the Lo Pub shut down to no small hipster fuss,
LaPolice found himself under the bus,
and the Liberals continued to disappear.
If it started with L, well, it had a bad year.

M is for Money, not that we have any;
governmental promises, sure, there've been many,
but our City's been stealthily unfreezing tax
and our Province's fiscal willpower's so lax
that its targets all had to be pushed two years back --
so Money, for now, we'll continue to lack.

N is for Noontime outside Kelvin High,
when a twenty-kid drug brawl fired up right outsi'e.
The fray of knives, BB guns, bats and steel bars
sent the kids off in ambulances and cop cars --
so if you've aspirations of being a thug,
please note that cocaine is a hell of a drug.

O for Ontario, a neighbouring land,
as hard as folks may find that to understand;
neither Rob Ford nor CBS This Morning know
that Winnipeg isn't in Ontario --
though, perhaps, if it were a more common mistake,
we'd have fewer problems drawing from their Shoal Lake.

P is for Prayer, because if we Pray
there's a chance that the city's crime might go away.
Police Chief remarks this had seemed to conclude,
although chances are good they had been misconstrued;
the reaction was one he might like to forget,
especially since he hadn't started yet.

Q is for Quarantined, all shut and boarded,
far easier than fixing the problems reported
with public facilities like Sherbook Pool
or the Civic Parkade (it's still closed, huh? That's cool);
seems we've begun treating repairs as disease,
which will mean far more Quarantines coming than these.

R for Rapid Transit, finally here
after decades of wait and delays quite severe;
your city in fast-forward! What a thrill!
Maybe four kilometres long, yes, but still --
a faster four K you will surely not find,
as rejoining Pembina will quickly remind.

S for the Speedway plant down in St. B,
zoned only to store wiper fluid, you see --
so you can imagine everyone's surprise
when a gigantic fireball lit up the skies,
methanol bursting into smoke and flame
as Speedway and the City took turns laying blame.

T is for Tickets to go see the Jets,
the finest political entitleme'ts
one could possibly get, used on various days
by no fewer than thirteen of our MLAs --
and in arena photos, front row of the place,
was Andrew Swan making a Grumpy Cat face.

U is for Unfinished, such is the state
of most major projects (many already late);
"on time and on budget" our PSB's not,
the Upper Fort tried to be a parking lot,
the Museum's gone silent, nary a sound,
and we had to reuse our old Stadium ground.

V is for Vi Ann, and for (Movie) Village,
flattened in the continued corporate pillage
of everything people thought made the zone good --
made, indeed, "Canada's Best Neighbourhood" --
and the next bout of fear and frustration to face
is the curious case of Papa George's space.

W for Waterpark -- gee, how'd you guess?
T'was the worst of all worlds, but a glorious mess
when the huffy withdrawl of its corporate backing
and City Council's widespread public shellacking
established a trend that has yet to reverse,
City Hall affairs getting only steadily worse.

X for X-Acto, just one of the knives
Winnipeggers use to ruin each others' lives;
it was knife crime on which Harvey Smith raised a racket,
but Police insist they can't possibly track it
so it remains bundled under 'violent crime',
which we happen to lead in most of the time.

Y is for "Yeah, whatever, okay";
it wasn't a "Yes" and it wasn't a "Yay"
but the provincial Tories' big leadership race
only yielded one guy, now the de facto face
of their party. The faithful tried acting excited,
but it played more like "Yeah, well... I guess that's decided."

And Z is for Zellers, the once-mighty beast
which will soon be completely extinct and deceased;
not glamorous, perhaps, not a brand of renown,
but it's one of the very last grocers downtown
and we'll need something planned for the rest of that Bay
before we get too distracted by Tar-jay.

[---]

Happy New Year, one and all! May the best of our yesterdays be the worst of our tomorrows, and all that.

Please be sure to tune into a very special episode of Winnipeg Internet Pundits this evening, and I'll catch you back around here later.