Reflections

FIFA U20 predictions

2007-07-16T20:34:00.000+01:00

So the FIFA U20 World Cup ended last night. Well, that's not entirely true. The quarter-finals ended last night, and so did the participation of every host city except for Toronto and Edmonton. Since I live in Ottawa and attended every game there, it feels like the tournament is over for me. Especially because I don't have television and will be unable to watch the remaining matches.

It doesn't matter though, because even though we are only at the semi-final stage, it is clear that Argentina will win. Which means that as an England fan, I don't want to watch the rest of this tournament.

I figured that this tournament might provide me with some joy because England wasn't in it. (England's non-participation in this tournament is not an indictment of their footballing acumen. Most European powers decided to give this tournament a miss, instead focusing on the European U21 championships that happened a few weeks earlier, where England ultimately did quite well, losing an interminably long penalty shoot-out to Netherlands in the semi-final. In fact, many traditional European powers including Netherlands, France, Italy, and Germany did not go to the tournament in Canada.) England, the nation that invented football, has not won a major footballing tournament since 1966, so their non-participation was actually seen by me as an opportunity to avoid disappointment. And since their arch-rivals Argentina were in this tournament I figured that the three lions on my chest gave me free reign to cheer for whoever was playing against Argentina. Since Argentina opened the tournament five teams have disappointed me, with only one managing to score against the Albicelestes, and only one other denying them a win.

The only thing worse so far would have been cheering against Chile. Up to this point, Argentina has been undefeated, has conceded only one goal, and has won every game except one. The only team with a better record has been Chile, who have won every game but one without conceding a single goal. True, they were forced to overtime in their quarter-final against Nigeria, but in the 30 extra minutes they put four goals past the Flying Eagles.

But we are entering the semi-finals, which is where fairytales end. Cinderella teams never make it past the semi-finals. Both Turkey and South Korea made it to the semi-finals of World Cup 2002, but the final was contested by Brasil and Germany, the two countries who have appeared in more finals than any other. The only exception to this hard and fast rule is the (glorious) surprise of Greece winning Euro 2004. But anomalies like that only occur once a century.

Argentina will roll over Chile, without needing extra time. (Argentina are the only semi-finalist who have not yet gone to extra time this tournament.) The Czech Republic will spoil the party for Austria, the team whose performances thus far actually mean they deserve to win the trophy.

The inevitable Argentina v Czech Republic final on Sunday is a foregone conclusion. It is interesting that the final will be a rematch of the first game of the tournament, where the two countries battled to a hard-fought nil-nil draw. But one should not let that result fool you into thinking that these two countries are evenly matched.

If we count victories in penalty shoot-outs as ties rather than wins, we can see that going into the semi-finals Argentina boasts a record of 4 wins and 1 tie, while Czech Republic have taken the tough road to the semis, with only 1 win and 4 ties.

The teams are markedly uneven in terms of goals as well. Since their opener the Czech Republic have conceded in every game they have played, and have not scored more than 2 goals in any single game. When excluding penalty shoot-outs their goals for-against is an unconvincing 7-6. Compare this to Argentina, whose for-against is a startling 11-1, helped immensely by a 6-0 thumping of Panama, who the Czechs only managed to beat 2-1.

Expecting more disappointment I will be cheering heavily for Austria, and especially for Chile, this coming week.

Other interesting factoids:

- The 4 semi-finalists come from only two groups (groups A and F). This means that the final could be one of two possible first-round rematches: Argentina v Czech Republic, or Chile v Austria. In both cases, the first round game finished 0-0.

- Austria has won each of their knockout stage matches by the same scoreline (2-1) with the same substitute (Erwin Hoffer) scoring the winning goal in both.

- Czech Republic have won all of their knockout stage matches on penalties. None of the other semi-finalists have yet gone to penalties.

- Argentina's victory over Mexico in Ottawa was the only quarter-final not to go to extra-time, though interestingly the only goal of the game was scored in first-half stoppage time.

Bad Dreams

2007-01-07T04:12:00.000Z

It seems that every time I have nightmares they always involve me missing something that I was really looking forward to.

For example, the other night I dreamt that the North American leg of the Turn It On Again tour had been announced and both the Vancouver and Seattle shows were entirely sold out.

Cultural Curiousity

2006-12-22T05:12:00.000Z

So the other day I watched, online, a 25-minute news feature by CBC reporter Mark Kelley.

The feature is called "Seven", and the premise is that the reporter spends seven days in a particular situation.

This particular episode (Part I, and Part II) featured Kelley spending 7 days with evangelical Christians.

Seven days with evangelical Christians doing anything in particular? Going on a missions trip? Lobbying Washington? Holding news conferences? Not really - just 7 days with evangelical Christians.

Can you believe it? Simply by existing, us evangelicals are a news story! The fact that I woke up in the morning is newsworthy.

This, or course, is great news. What other groups gets that kind of free air time?? This is PR that we can't buy.

And unfortunately we aren't capitalising like we should.

Ok I don't want to just rag on my co-religionists, because of course I love them. But I have to point this out. There is this gloriously beautiful clip in this feature where the reporter asks a couple of young Christians "so what is the one thing you think I should know?"

!!! BA-ZING!! People, this guy (albeit for showbusiness purposes) has just ASKED YOU to present the gospel to him! You cannot ask for a better opportunity! (Actually, in your prayers last night you probably did ask for an opportunity this golden, come to think of it.)

And so these eager, young, intelligent Christians answered his question. The one thing that Mark Kelley and CBC viewers need to know is that . . . media stereotypes about Christians aren't always correct?!?!? Come ON guys! What a terrible answer to give!

And that was the one thing I was left feeling after watching this feature. Kelley highlighted a bunch of Christians (and not crazy out-of-the-mainstream Christians either. He went to ATF, Teen Mania, xxxchurch.com, etc) fighting culture wars. And when an opportunity to evangelise came along they were so busy fighting smut and unwholesome entertainment that they didn't recognise it.

Ok, so I don't want to give them too hard a time. Besides, the guy who plays Jesus at Holy Land Orlando did take the opportunity to make a gospel presentation to Kelley, which was fabulous.

(And just a few days prior I watched a magnificent interview on The Standard with Franklin Graham where Graham, no matter the question, always managed to bring his answer back to the death and resurrection message of Jesus. It was beautiful; whether the interviewer tried to talk about humanitarian aid, politics, or relations with Islam, Graham always managed to end up talking about sin and salvation. It was a great interview.)

All I'm saying is that when the secular world wants to talk about politics, economics, or semantics, we should always be mindful of why we bear the name of Christ. We bear the name to glorify the name, and we should air it as much as we bear it.

Seriously, the fact that we are combatants in the "War on Christmas" is tragic. We should spend a whole lot less time worrying about whether Christ is in our retailers adverts and more time worrying about whether Christ is in our neighbour's hearts.

One thing this amusing CBC feature taught me is that we are a cultural curiousity. Let's engage the culture-watchers, not just amuse them.

Advice on Marriage from me, a single guy

2006-12-07T19:38:00.000Z

Unfortunately, the church in Canada has totally missed the boat. Completely.

I am, of course, talking about the definition of marriage.

First, let me be totally clear about this issue. The issue is not same-sex marriage. The issue is the definition of marriage. And our first mistake was letting our political opponents define the debate. As soon as pastors and Christian leaders started using the term "same-sex marriage" you knew that they had already lost. Calling it same-sex marriage already implies ownership of marriage by same-sex couples. By giving a name to something you don't believe exists you are tacitly admitting that, though you may not like it, it does certainly exist. It exists, because it has a name! So we had a debate about "same-sex marriage", not about the "definition of marriage". Our first critical mistake was not defining the debate.

Our second mistake was a lot more crucial. It had to do with how we reacted when we lost the debate and Parliament redefined marriage. And interestingly, the reaction by the church was quite different depending on which age group we are talking about. The reaction of older Christians was naive and stubborn, but the reaction by younger Christians was downright stupid.

The reaction by older Christians was, quite simply, reactionary. 'If we dig in our heels, rally the troops, and stream to the ballot box, we can elect Christians who will restore traditional marriage,' was their thinking. Like I said, naive. Naive, because anyone who reads the polls, watches the news, or reads the newspapers knows that this parliament is not going to restore traditional marriage any time in the foreseeable future. It was also stubborn because these Christians failed to entertain new political tactics and insisted on using the same old methods of political engagement which had been so hopeless in the past.

The reaction by younger Christians was, for the orthodox, infuriating. The thinking of younger Christians on this issue was the dullest example of 'cutting edge' thinking I have ever seen. Their thinking, insofar as I can divine it, was something like this: 'The church has gotten a bad name for a long time by always taking unpopular and judgemental stances on issues in society. Let's completely forget about the marriage debate and instead focus on more important issues.' So far so good - so what is the problem with this thinking? Well, there are a number of problems with this thinking.

One significant problem is the refusal by young Christians to take a stand on any social issue that is unpopular. The traditional definition of marriage is not a popular position, but that does not make it any less correct. The willingness of many young Christians to abandon the debate in favour of 'more important' issues is a prime example of spinelessness and a tragic lack of commitment to unpopular Christian positions.

An even larger problem with this position is that young Christians vowed to focus instead on 'more important' issues (which really just meant more socially acceptable issues) without articulating a positive Christian vision of what a focus on more important issues would look like! So many young Christians have decided that it means fighting AIDS - a noble calling to be sure. But instead of using a Christian approach to the AIDS epidemic, they are following non-Christian approaches. These young Christians are sending money and manpower to the Stephen Lewis Foundation, completely oblivious to the fact that Stephen Lewis's approach to HIV/AIDS is hardly consistent with a Christian approach to the crisis.

After seeing the church lose the debate on the definition of marriage, young Christians quickly and uncritically shifted their social justice efforts to socially acceptable issues, and did so in a manner that is not consistent with a Christian view of cultural engagement. I won't get into it in great detail, but let me just say that if we as Christians are going to fight HIV/AIDS (which of course we should), then we should first articulate a positive Christian vision of how to do so, instead of blindly following the advice of the opinion pages in secular newspapers. I won’t get into it here, but put simply it is the difference between Stephen Lewis's approach and Rick Warren's approach.

This band-wagoning with secularists on social issues is indicative of the attitude of many young Christians. It represents an unwillingness to go against the grain of societal norms; an unwillingness to defend unpopular positions, even if they are biblical; and a preference for following over leading.

All this to say that due to the stubbornness of traditionalists and the repudiation of traditional values by progressives, the Christian church in Canada has missed a gilt-edged chance to preach a remarkably positive message about marriage, the family, and the church's place in society.

So what should the church have done when they lost the definition of marriage debate? Well as you can tell by my polemic against progressive Christians, I don't think we should have simply abandoned the marriage issue and let the state take full ownership of it. Nor do I think we should have stuck our head in the sand, or drawn a line in the sand. If there is one thing our Lord taught us it is that we should stay away from sand.

What should the church have done? It's a suggestion I first heard in 2003 from Wes Burr, and it's brilliant.

The Christian church in Canada should stop performing civil marriages and only perform religious marriages.

Do I mean to say that we should encourage Christians to get married before God and never sign a marriage certificate?

Absolutely.

What a teaching moment this would be! This would be the perfect way to send the message that God, not the state, defines what marriage is. If God's Kingdom is not of this world, then no government-issued piece of paper can tell you when you are or are not married in the sight of God.

It would also show the church's complete commitment to the separation of church and state. In fact Church and state are so separate that we have repudiated any and all state involvement is the sacred matter of Christian marriage! What a great teaching that would be.

And legally speaking, the consequences would be virtually nil. Young Christian couples who got married before the alter without signing a civil marriage certificate would not have to worry about losing the tax and legal benefits of civil marriage, because after 6 months this little concept called "common-law partnership" would kick into effect by default. So the state would give you the title of "common-law", but it would matter not one whit - you are married before God, and you haven't polluted your marriage by accepting an unholy, secular definition of what marriage is.

By refusing to perform civil marriages, the church would have a perfect opportunity to teach not about the evil of same-sex marriages, but about the blessedness and sanctity of God-ordained Christian marriage.

But the Canadian Christian church has not done that. Instead of seizing a golden opportunity to demonstrate how the church can be a positive innovator in a society that it is in but not of, we have opened up a new fissure between never-say-die traditionalists and malleable, trend-chasing progressives.

We have very little time left to reverse this trend, and I hope we seize the opportunity very soon.

Auburn Belinda on CBC

2006-12-03T04:35:00.000Z

For anyone who watched the Liberal Leadership coverage on the CBC network this weekend, the real story was Belinda Stronach's new hair colour. Love her or hate her, there is no denying that Belinda's new dark hair is a very flattering look for her. Many people told me that they weren't expecting to see Belinda looking like that.

But it should come as no surprise - Belinda is always changing her colours.

(I am here all week people.)

Be Thou my Vision

2006-11-04T04:34:00.000Z

This weekend has been a whirlwind that has once again left my head spinning as I think about the state of evangelicalism today.

At the time of writing this paragraph, the most read and most e-mailled story on news.bbc.co.uk is about a high-profile American evangelical. To my left sits a book by a leading Canadian evangelical, signed by the author with the message "God Bless, 'Cousin'" written on the inside cover. To my right sits a ticket stub from an event with a leading Canadian evangelical musician and British Christian writer.

First, let me say that I have always believed that part of the success, dynamism, and appeal of evangelicals lies in the fact that we are a very self-reflective bunch. We are constantly re-assessing our doctrines, attitudes, and actions in light of solo scriptura (and soli deo gloria, and all those other cool Latin slogans). And headlines on the BBC like "Sex-row US pastor 'bought-drugs'" definitely cause us to reflect.

This was not the first time that Ted Haggard made headlines though. In November 2005 the cover story of Christianity Today was a great deal more positive. In fact it was down-right inspiring. The story "Good Morning, Evangelicals!" urged readers to "Meet Ted Haggard, the NAE's optimistic champion of ecumenical evangelism and free-market faith." The church was being re-invigorated by a leader who preached a simple and re-vitalised evangelicalism; who spoke to the White House every week; and who was seemingly unflappable.

I don't know about you, but I was ready for an optimistic champion of ecumenical evangelism and free-market faith. It was a breath of fresh air in the midst of many equally unattractive options. Whether it was the schmarmy, off-putting prosperity gospel of Osteen and Schuller; the nay-saying, anti-traditionalist negativity of Wallis, McLaren, and Bell; the impossible-to-acheive, type-A, executive style evangelism of Jakes and Hybels; or Falwell and Dobson, unable to get their worthy messages past unfair stereotypes that dogged them. Even the evangelical population at large was starting to tire of these leaders, leaders all suffering from some kind of malaise. The general feeling was that they all had some of the Truth, but each had their own handicap that stopped it from being truly compelling. That is where Haggard, I think, was able to shine. I think he came to the forefront because he had the ability to relate to people comfortably and naturally. Harper's magazine decided arbitrarily, in February 2005, that Haggard and Dobson were the two most influental evangelicals in the USA. Haggard made the TIME magazine list of 25 most influental evangelicals. And the ChurchReport.com list of 50 most influental. And any list made since the 2004 election. I know that when there was a difficult issue that I did not have time to research and think through, I would just take my opinion from whatever the NAE put out. After all, they shared my values so why wouldn't I want to share their opinions? Under Haggard's leadership the NAE became a valuable opinion-leader in the marketplace of ideas.

The situation with Haggard has come at a time when it looks like evangelicalism has peaked and fallen from its throne in America. The 2000 and 2004 elections, with all their talk of "values voters" really made a lot of people believe that it was the Bible-thumpers country now, thank you very much. Of course in hindsight we should have realised that this was a lot of media hype. Certainly evangelicals had a lot of momentum in 2004, but their conquest was far from complete. They had momentum in 2004, but now in 2006 Christianity Today is referring to evangelical voters as "dispirited". What happened in just two years?

Well three things happened. The evangelical community supported a war they were never entirely comfortable with, in hopes that the President would reciprocate and support pro-family measures that Washington would never be entirely comfortable with. Needless to say, the Godsquad was disappointed: the unjust war became even more unpopular, and as thanks for their support President Bush nominated two Supreme Court justices who were iffy on life ethics and family values, while all the while never really put any effort into promoting abstinence-only sex ed, real protections for marriage, or serious pro-life reforms in areas like private stem-cell research. Also, environment became the hot topic of the day and evangelicals were slow to get behind creation care.

One: our support for the war really hurt us. Two: the President did not go to bat for us like we hoped he would. Three: we were viewed as irresponsible on the environment. With this as the backdrop, the Haggard situation is really not more than a diversion. Nonetheless, it is hard to think of American evangelicalism as anything but 'in trouble.'

* * *

But how would we describe Canadian evangelicalism today? Well a Torontonian would hardly believe that it existed. But interestingly, in a far less Christian country a quieter, less triumphalist evangelicalism is really doing quite well. On Friday morning I went a Prayer Breakfast in Surrey where the speaker was none other than the truly unflappable Deborah Grey. Two evangelical pastors gave the opening and closing prayers, evangelical songs were song, and the choir from the local Christian private school sang. And it was one of the songs of that choir that really struck me from the morning: "Be Thou My Vision oh Lord of my Heart. Not be all else to me, save that Thou art."

The name of Jesus was repeated used that morning in front of an audience that was made up of a lot of non-Christians. When she delivered the keynote address Deb Grey unapologetically credited her life to Jesus Christ, and she closed her speech by reading her testimony of how she came to faith in Christ. When she finished speaking Deborah Grey, the first ever Member of Parliament for the no-holds-barred Reform Party, sang a song called "The Lighthouse", a bold, blatant, and unapologetic call to accept Jesus Christ. The intended audience of the Prayer Breakfast was leaders in the community, and the message was that good leaders need someone even better to lead them; someone to whom they can say "Be Thou My Vision".

* * *

I finished my weekend with a concert at Johnston Heights Evangelical Free Church. Adrian Plass and Steve Bell were putting on a tour called the Story & Song tour, and it wasn't really a concert because Plass is an author and humourist, and Bell spent half of his set speaking. It was great to see a British author that (largely due to my mother's influence) I had come to be quite a fan of. I had even lived just 10 miles away from his house for a year while I lived in England, but I never actually met him until this weekend. I had met Steve Bell 5 years ago, but I didn't get to see all of his concert in Three Hills in 2001. I watched his set this weekend, and his performance blew me out of the water. What really stuck out for me was Steve Bell's comment: "It's nice that you are here. With the . . . Women of Faith conference this weekend I thought no one would be here. So it's nice to see you here." Steve Bell is a funny guy and meant it to be tongue-in-cheek, but I just thought it interesting that on one particular weekend in a Canadian city two seperate faith events would compete for a "captive Christian audience", and both would, incidently, end up doing quite well.

While CTV Newsnet did their best to exaggerate the Haggard story far beyond its natural life the Body of Christ continued on, largely unbothered. I don't buy the argument that marrying faith with politics has been the achilles heel in America. Deb Grey proved that principled and committed faith can be a positive influence on government. But Steve Bell and Adrian Plass reminded us that whatever you marry your faith to--be it your career, your community, or your politics--should never become the ultimate goal. "Be Thou My Wisdom and Thou my True Word." The Lord is the centre of what we do, and that is what makes it worth doing. And that is why we can continue on unabated in the shadow of a supposedly catastrophic meltdown south of the 49th.

Has politics been built up as an idol in the US evangelical community? Oh, no doubt. That is what has allowed David Kuo to write books such as his latest one. Whenever we lose sight of "Be Thou my Vision" we run the risk of choosing another guide. That is why we don't sign "Be Ted Haggard my Vision" or "Be World Vision my Vision" or "Be (popular Christian personality or ideal) my Vision".

If there is one thing that this Haggard scenario has told us it is that neither Christ nor Christianity are going anywhere.
Let's just hope we keep our eyes trained on our Vision.

"Heart of my own heart, whatever befall,
Still be my Vision, O Ruler of all."

Top of the WHAT?

2006-10-04T08:23:00.000+01:00

So I phoned home the other day. I must have got my parents in the middle of a football highlights show, because my father picked up and said, "We're watching Top of the Match."

To which I replied, "Top of the Match?? Father, did you just combine the names of two of the most successful BBC shows of all time, Top of the Pops and Match of the Day, and create a new programme?"

"Yes," replied Dad with a chuckle. "Top of the Match."

The Abolition of divine discontent

2006-09-16T22:06:00.000+01:00

I love figuring out where Christian artists get their band/album/song names from. I really like it, however, when I figure it out myself. For example, I was sitting in class one time (many years ago) when I had a "Eureka!" moment by mentally linking the band Plankeye with Matthew 7:3.

But when it comes straight from the Bible, it's kind of lame. I mean, how hard is that to figure out? Sure Jars of Clay have a name from 2 Corinthians 4:7 and Letter Kills has a name from the same book, but it's no fun figuring it out when you have to look no further than the New Testament. It's a lot more rewarding when an artist drops a jewel that you have to go looking for.

For example, the name of Sixpence None the Richer. It comes from Mere Christianity, where C. S. Lewis uses a parable to explain grace. If a father gave his child a sixpence so the could get his father a birthday present, the father would be foolish if, upon receiving a present worth sixpence on his birthday, he thought he was a sixpence to the good. Lewis was pointing out that we often do things for God and arrogantly think that God is somehow indebted to us for it. The truth is, no matter what we do God is sixpence none the richer. I mean, that is a pretty cool reference, n'est-ce pas? Unfortunately I read it in a magazine and was denied the joy of figuring it out myself.

One I did figure out myself and thought was pretty cool was the name of Mars Ill's first album, Raw Material. In preaching against eugenics in his book The Abolition of Man, C. S. Lewis uses the phrase "If man treats himself as raw material, raw material he will be." That's where Manchild (Mars Ill's rapper) got the name for his album!, I exclaimed to myself while reading that book. What do you know, I was right - the last track on Raw Material is called "The Abolition of Manchild."

So that was fun. And all this is leading up to one I discovered last night. I wasn't even thinking about Sixpence None the Richer's last album, Divine Discontent. But what do you know, while reading Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton I came across this quote:

"If we wish specially to awaken people to social vigilance
and tireless pursuit of practise, we cannot help it
much by insisting on the Immanent God and the Inner Light:
for these are at best reasons for contentment;
we can help it much by insisting on the transcendent
God and the flying and escaping gleam; for that means
divine discontent."

Wicked!! Sixpence None the Richer took the name of their band from Lewis, and the name of their last album from Chesterton - oh boy, I figured it out, I'm clever!

(A caveat - I'm not really clever, I just feel that way. Thanks for humouring me.)

Walk of Hope

2006-09-11T01:27:00.000+01:00

Some things about my job are tough. Many things are unrewarding. I get paid way less than I ought. Loud-mouthed liberals are rude to you. I work all manner of un-billable hours.

But I still do it because some things in this job are SO worth it. Did you know that Ovarian Cancer is the 5th leading cause of cancer deaths in Canada? Did you also know that Vancouver's Van Dusen Botanical Gardens is even more beautiful than Stanley Park?

Today we (I am my boss) went to the Van Dusen Botanical Gardens for Vancouver's first ever Winners Walk of Hope. There were about 300 people from all over the Lower Mainland, most of whom had been touched in some way by Ovarian Cancer. My boss read greetings from Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who himself attended the Walk last year in Comox.

The appreciation showed to us by everyone there was palpable. "Thank you for your support - thank you for being here on behalf of the Prime Minister." By this small group of people, more than $37000 was raised for research to help fight this insidious disease. These are the people we are in government on behalf of.

You see, the media and the educational institutions would have you believe that the issues important to Canada are whatever the far-left lobby is hawking. Well, to Joe and Janice Canadian, they don't care about safe injection sites, and they don't see much logic is paying addicts to shoot up. They don't care about whether Theresa and Tammi are getting married, but they aren't sure why federal employees of a religious bent need to be fired for not marrying them.

To them the important issues are the Ovarian Cancer that their sister just contracted, or how their budget is going to stretch to pay for their kids sports registration, or why they ship so much of their income to the federal government to begin with. These people are the Canada that needs defending, and these are the people we will stand up for. They want safety in their homes, they want a little financial help for child-rearing but they will take care of raising the kids themselves thank you very much, and they want to get medically necessary surgery in less than 4 months, which is the wait time now.

Canada belongs to those people, not the loud-mouthed, far-left activists of the inner city. Keep up the great work Stephen - you're building the right kind of Canada for all of us.

My Usual Posse

2006-09-07T02:18:00.000+01:00

First, I would like to redirect the attention of everyone to a wonderful post written by my good friend Mr. Jeffs. There is a man we can all aspire to be like.

Second, I would like to direct your attention to a photo that the Prime Minister's official photographer took for me. Here it is:

We just shot the breeze - you know how you do. We like to meet up for the occassional chit-chat now and again.

2006-09-02T05:47:00.000+01:00

Here is a photo I took with my mobile phone while the Prime Minister chatted with an employee of the Canadian Border Services Agency:

We chatted for a while - he's a remarkably easy-going guy, in case you were wondering.

A Caveat

2006-08-22T05:39:00.000+01:00

Just as a caveat - my previous post praising Underoath for taking a stand is IN NO WAY an endorsement of Underoath or what they may say. I've read interviews with Underoath before and have taken issue with certain things they have said, and I just read a Journal post from their website that was COMPLETELY anathema.

The Journal post in question contains this, utterly dodgy, quote: "God has shown me that the time of believing in something we can not see is over." If you do not know why this is problematic for the Bible Believer, feel free to check out Hebrews 11:1.

So I'm not saying that Underoath are/should be role models for Christian young people - in fact I think the opposite. I just happened to agree with their one particular decision to leave the Warped Tour this summer.

Underoath couldn't take the heat . . .

2006-08-22T05:12:00.000+01:00

. . . so they got out of the Vans Warped kitchen.

Yes, Underoath had a tough decision to take. Every day on the Vans Warped tour this summer, Fat Mike from NOFX would get on stage and mock the members of Underoath. Swearing, mocking, and derisive, Fat Mike mocked the faith of the members of Underoath, called them stupid, unmodern, blamed them for war, etc, etc. When Underoath took the stage, they ran the risk of vulgar insults, booing, and thrown projectiles. Not only that, but they faced the risk of a boycott at the merch table. Now Underoath is not the first Christian band to play the Warped Tour (MxPx, Relient K, Letter Kills), but few have faced the kind of mockery that Underoath faced.

Underoath left the Warped Tour early. Was this the right decision? I'm not sure. What is the point of staying in a trying environment and surrounded by temptation constantly? Would Underoath have made a statement about their faith by staying on the Tour and subjecting themselves to further ridicule? In my opinion, the only message that would have sent is that Christians are push-overs who will take any type of abuse on the chin. Would people have remembered anything except that Underoath were the Tour joke? No, I think Underoath did the right thing but standing up and saying "We're not going to be part of this any more." It has been said that discretion is the greater part of valour - I think that Underoath showed discretion by leaving the Tour instead of foolishly choosing it as a hill to die on.

After watching MuchMusic, I went to a Liberal Party Leadership Debate today. It was pretty boring, I didn't stay long. I thought I'd have a lot more to say about it - strangely, I've spent so much time typing out that bit about Underoath (it took a long time because I was listening to a Ravi Zacharias podcast at the same time, and it's difficult to listen and write at the same time) that I forgot anything interesting I might have had to say about the Liberal Leadership Debate.

Let's just say that I still disagree with their social values. Imagine that. Otherwise, I found Ignatieff inspiring.

my first published soundbite

2006-08-13T05:53:00.000+01:00

As many of you know, I work in politics. I do a lot of spin. I take things that I (and, quite conveniently, my boss) believe in, and spin them in hope that others will begin to believe in them as well.

Take for example the Age of Protection. This is the age at which a person is legally allowed to decide for themselves if they want to have sex with another person. The Liberals, for reasons which the Almighty himself can only make vague and uncertain guesses about, seem to think that 14 years is a perfectly acceptable age for youngsters to be making this decision. Their minds are not ready for the privilege of voting or driving and their bodies are not ready for the privilege of drinking alcohol, but their bodies and minds are apparently ready to have sex with whoever they like.

Yeah right.

So on Thursday night when Stockwell Day came to town for a little Town Hall meeting on the subject of public safety, I wrote my boss a speech for the occassion. The media were there, and the subsequent article in today's Surrey Now has a quote from Nina Grewal on the Age of Protection - my quote! The soundbite I wrote, to help people realise how G.D. F-ing unjust it is to have such a sickeningly low Age of Protection.

You can read it - the truth is, I just put in words exactly how I felt on the issue. Nina spoke the words, and the media picked up on it and turned it into my first published soundbite.

Fortunately for Canada and Canadian children we finally have a justice minister who doesn't spend his time screwing around and pandering to special interest groups, because he is too busy introducing common-sense and long overdue legislation.

fame is a fleeting thing

2006-08-07T07:30:00.000+01:00

I met Prime Minister Stephen Harper yesterday.

That is a great statement, on so many levels. First, it says a lot about us and our celebrityism. It is amazing how people change around celebrities. I know I certainly change around celebrities - a lot more blood flows to my head, my mind races at 1million miles a minute, I think through a dozen different consequence-scenarios to every little thing I say.

As a high school student I was once with a group of peers when we met Stockwell Day and he invited us into his official residence. Needless to say, this was unorthodox behaviour for the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, even in the pre-9/11 environment. This took place at the height of Day's popularity, just weeks before it all hit the fan for him.

There was one teenager who was with the group who would 48 hours later, in the House of Commons, slip a note which read "Stop hating women and gays, signed all of Canada" into Stockwell Day's desk. But in Day's official residence, Alexander was ENTIRELY a different person. He was grinning like a chimpanzee when he got to meet Stock. He shook Stockwell's hand eagerly and wrapped his arm around Stock in a vice grip. He came up to me and virtually begged me to take a photo of him with the Leader of the Opposition, and then mail it to him. (I recall very vividly that I DID post him a copy of that photo - I certainly didn't have high-speed internet or a digital camera in March 2001.)

This anecdote, all to illustrate the point that being around celebrities (even minor celebrities - who, outside of Canada's 30 million inhabitants, has heard of Stockwell Day?) changes how people behave, and I can't get over that.

Second, people try way too hard to appear unfazed by celebrity. "I'm not affected by famous people" is phrase that is only used by those who are most affected by famous people. I learned very early to be upfront about my celebrityism - there is no point in pretending to be unaffected by the presence of famous people when I so clearly am.

I think it's because we have this idea that treating people differently because of their status is immoral, and if we admit that we treat celebrities differently than we treat others we will be guilty of a disgustingly inegalitarian rank favouritism. We just can't get out of our heads those high school history classes where the revolutionaries of France are repeatedly praised for the complete impartiality with which they treated the royals, showing no undue deference for their political position, and making decisions solely on their merits.

I certainly don't think there is anything wrong with treating the leader of a country differently, however. We do, after all, live (ostensibly) in a meritocracy, and if Mr. Harper is the Premier Ministre, he must have done something to deserve his position. Therefore, if we are to judge him entirely on his merits we really should pay him extra respect because he earned his position through his superior talents.

As I left a BBQ that Stephen Harper was at today I overheard one attendee brag to another that he was not impressed by celebrity, and he had called the man serving chicken 'Stephen', while others had called him 'Prime Minister'. Of course, beginning an anecdote with "I'm not impressed by fame" and then going on to brag about your interactions with a famous person really gives the lie to what you are saying.

Third, our tendency to exaggerate and brag about our brushes with fame. Yes, I did meet Prime Minister Stephen Harper yesterday; my first time meeting Prime Minister Stephen Harper. (I had met Stephen Harper twice in 2004, before he was PM.) But my interaction with him consisted of a handshake and "Dennis Crawford, I'm Nina Grewal's assistant", to which the PM replied, "Oh, good - it's nice to see you" (before he went on the stage) and a "Prime Minister, can we get a photo of just you and Nina?" to which he replied "yes" (after he left the stage). THAT WAS IT. And yet I still found it necessary to tell you that I "met" him. And I'm sure I will tell this story, in its aggrandised form, a number of times in the coming days.

Interesting, isn't it? We are SO affected by celebrity. Any person who is both eminent and imminent changes our actions so profoundly. There is, you may be surprised to discover, a theological explanation for this phenomenon. You see, we were designed to worship a personality. It is in our very nature as humans to want to worship something better than us. Of course, the personality that we are designed to worship is God, but so often we displace that personality with another.

Jeremiah 2:13 says, "for my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns that can hold no water."

We are supposed to worship God - to drink from the fountain of living waters. But instead we often ditch the worship of God for the worship of a vastly inferior substitute. Instead of the fountains of living water, we drink from broken cisterns - worshipping entertainers, political activists, leaders, or athletes. But the worship of these second-rate personalities comes so easily, because worship is very natural for us.

Of course, we easily fool ourselves because we don't use the word "worship". "Oh, I really admire Madonna." "I really look up to Wayne Gretzky." "I would really like to meet Michael Ignatieff." But what is the point in fooling ourselves? It's obviously worship. And here's the kicker - it's nothing to be ashamed of, because it's perfectly natural. You just need to recognise that your natural desire is misdirected, and then take the steps to direct it back to where it belongs - directed toward the only worthy object of worship, the infallible God.

I met Prime Minister Harper yesterday. From all I could ascertain, he is a real swell guy.

short memories

2006-08-05T18:42:00.000+01:00

People have short memories, and I am very glad for that.

For example, no one seemed to remember in 2005 that only 4 years previous the Liberal government had voted to uphold the definition of marriage. The 180 degree position change by the Liberal government went virtually unnoticed.

Today, the top headline on CbC.ca begins with "U.S., France agree." And yet, from all the news reports I have been observing lately, no one finds this remarkable. Doesn't anyone remember that only 4 years ago burger joints in America were renaming the happy meal side dish 'freedom fries'? And now, only four years on, "U.S., France agree", and nobody bats an eyelid. What short memories we have.

And a good thing we have short memories! Why? Well, because if we didn't people would remember all the silly mistakes I have made in my short life. For example, this week I had a fabulous cock-up. The Prime Minister (of Canada) is coming to our neck of the woods. He is going to attend a cultural festival. So I have to help out with the coordination of this visit from this end. Pretty easy job, right? Especially when the PMO is doing most of the logistics, speech-writing, and security.

Well, fortunately people have a short memory, because somehow Dennis would screw this up. There are two cultural festivals the same day, at the same time, at seperate locations. One is at Deer Lake Park, the other is at Bear Creek Park. We want the Prime Minister to go to Bear Creek Park. I sent the PMO a bunch of information about the event at Deer Lake Park.

BEAR CREEK! DEER LAKE! HONESTLY, it's a very easy mistake to make!! Four-legged animal-body of Water Park. They can easily be mistaken for each other!

Well, fortunately people have short memories, because in a week or two, everyone will have forgotten about this - but I think it's still a hilarious story to tell. I mean who, other than Dennis Crawford, could end up sending wrong information to the leader of the country?!?

A friend of mine once told me that I have the most random life of anyone he knows. Some days I think he is right.

The Prime Minister is coming tomorrow. He is coming to Bear Creek Park. I still have a sinking fear that Stephen and I will show up at Bear Creek Park and no one will be there, however.

Le Foot

2006-08-02T00:45:00.000+01:00

I'm going back to Langley tonight for round 2 of tryouts.

Langley United FC has put out the call for all positions, and I am trying my luck at left wing. They have teams in Premier, Div 1, Div 2, and Div 3, so I feel pretty good about my chances of landing on a team somewhere, but I'm not counting my chickens! And if I do make the cut, it definitely won't be for the Premier side, so it won't really be anything to brag about.

Still, it is a lot fun to finally be playing again, and I cannot wait for 7pm tonight!

Well, that was a much lamer blog entry than I anticipated it being, but at least I got something up here!

irony

2006-07-27T19:30:00.000+01:00

So I went to the Superstore to buy some items that I could eat with my cheese, but being a frugal sort of fellow I was disinclined to buy the brand-name "Ritz" crackers, so I saved 80 cents by purchasing the President's Choice product that was next to it on the shelf. The President's Choice box had this to say about it's product:

"Rich & Flaky Crackers"

'Hmm,' I thought. 'A box containing Paris and Nicole Hilton.'

Ba-zing!!!

I'm here all week people!

Giving up

2006-06-30T00:43:00.000+01:00

I just read a blog that exactly predicted who the participants in the quarter-finals would be, one day before the tournament started. Ok, well they were 7/8 on the quarterfinal participants - they thought Croatia instead of France would be playing Brasil. The important thing is that they not only got the participants correct, but they correct predicted WHO they would be playing! (Which, if you have been following closely you will realise, is contingent on also correctly predicting whether the said teams will finish 1st or 2nd in their respective group. Tricky business.)

The point is, with pundits like this, why do I even bother?

. . . devotion has its own reward.

2006-06-26T07:03:00.000+01:00

10 out of 16!! Honestly, that's not that bad, is it? I just want to quickly make excuses for some of the ones I got wrong:

Group A - Ok, I overestimated the strength of the CONCACAF representative, but I had good reason for underestimating Ecuador: I've watched Delgado play for Southampton and De la Cruz play for Aston Villa, and they've been generally useless. I, nor anyone else, expected Ecuador to score 5 goals, much less have Delgado get 2 of them!

Group C - It all hinged on the Ivory Coast v Argentina game - it needed to finish in a tie. But for those who watched it, you know how close I was to being right about it - Ivory Coast totally bossed the posession! They really should have tied the game but they just wouldn't take the shots! Despite the 6-0 drubbing of Serbia & Montenegro, and qualification to the quarter-finals, I still stand by what I said about this being a weak Argentina team (compared to past ones). Germany WILL beat them in the quarter-finals.

Group E - Like I said, I never really expected Italy to not qualify, but I was hoping. What we really should focus on is the fact that I did predict Ghanaian qualification when no one else did!

Group F - I really have no excuse here.

Group G - I was suffering from a lack of any sort of head-to-head comparison between South Korea and Switzerland. I knew they both had the pedigree to go through, but who would edge it? Well, they never play each other--they never even play the same opponents!--so I had to go with my gut. My gut was wrong. But I was right about France.

Group H - Tunisia should never have let Saudi Arabia tie them. That was sad. Look for Ukraine to succumb to the Swiss in the round of 16.

Excuses successfully aired, now let's get some knockout predictions up here! I'm sorry that I let a half the round of 16 get by me before getting these up, but I have been justifiably busy. FOR THE RECORD, in the four matches that have already passed, I would have picked Germany, Argentina, England, and Netherlands. (that would have been 3/4, and anyone who saw the Portugal v Netherlands game can forgive me for not getting that one correct!!)

So let me finish of the round of 16 by picked Italy, Brasil (I'm sorry), Switzerland, and Spain.

Predictions for the quarter-finals! Germany defeat Argentina, England defeat Portugal, Brasil defeat Italy (I certainly hope so!), Spain defeat Switzerland. So my revised final four looks like Germany, England, Brasil, and Spain, which is 50% different than the final four I picked at the start of the tournament. How different will it be from the actual final four??

So it is beginning to look like the final may be a repeat of four years ago, with Germany and Brasil taking part. If that happens Germany will win. I can only hope that England get past Portugal and provide enough of a roadblock in the semi-finals to trip up Germany.

Unlikely, but anything can happen - that is why we watch, cheer, and pray!

C'mon England, C'mon England!

For the patient legions of faithful . . .

2006-06-04T23:02:00.000+01:00

The time is finally upon us. The final month of a two and a half year tournament approaches. The most watched sporting event on the planet draws everyone into this fatal trap - the trap of "making predictions".

The first rule of making predictions is that YOU ARE ALLOWED TO BE TOTALLY BIASED. The second rule is that WHATEVER YOU PREDICT IS GUARANTEED NOT TO HAPPEN. So just for fun, just for a laugh, here are my predicitions for the group stages. I will also predict who I think will be the final four, and of course who I think will win. Then, when the group stages are over, I will revise my predictions for the knock-out phase. (There is no point making predictions now, as the teams I see qualifying out of the group stage probably won't all make it, and that would just bugger up my predictions.)

So here are my predictions, bearing in mind a few constants:
- the cinderella team. That team from a tiny (usually African) country, who is at the World Cup for the first time and surprises everyone by doing very well. It quickly becomes very fashionable for people all over the world to suddenly become a "fan" of this team. In 1994 it was Cameroon, in 2002 Senegal. With four African debutants to pick from this time around, it should be very interesting.

- The eastern European team that refuses to lie down. In 1998 it was Croatia, in 2002 it was Turkey. This year I'm picking it to be a team that used to be considered a football powerhouse when it had "Slovakia" attached to it's name. The Czech Republic should do well.

- The traditional power that crashes out early. Remember how in 2002 the defending champions failed to score a single goal? And remember how Argentina left after 3 matches, partly because they lost to England? Argentina are in danger of repeating the feat, and Italy could easily be this team if they aren't careful.

So here we go - the groups, with my predicted finishing order shown: (oh, and if I happen to get 3rd and 4th mixed up, that doesn't really count. all that matters is I picked who went through.)

Group A
Germany
Costa Rica
Ecuador
Poland

Never bet against the host as the host always does well, and in this case never bet against the team that has appeared in (and also lost more) World Cup final matches than any other country. Costa Rica represented CONCACAF very well at the last World Cup (scoring more goals against Brazil than England did!) and I expect them to shock everybody by going through at the expense of an Ecuador team that does not play well at lower altitudes and a Poland who doesn't seem to handle the big occasion to well.

Group B
Sweden
England
Paraguay
Trinidad & Tobago

In the football world, T&T are the 5'2" guy who all the women say is "so cute!" but no one will actually date. It's a shame that the Soca Warriors don't get more respect because their two-legged defeat over Bahrain after navigating a gruelling three-round qualification process in CONCACAF is a real tribute to this tiny island nation, and sadly the football world doesn't give them the credit they are due. Even with names that are well known in England, like Dwight Yorke and Shaka Hislop, T&T will be going home without ruffling any feathers. The same cannot be said of Paraguay. Any team that qualifies out of COMNEBOL is going to be a threat, and England's stoppage-time victories over Argentina and Uruguay earlier this year will give them the psychological edge. But the result of their June 10 fixture is by no means set in stone, and the "best England team since 1966" might go home early if things do not go according to plan in Munich. Watch for Paraguay to be the party poopers and spoil my obviously biased prediction.

Group C
Netherlands
Ivory Coast
Argentina
Serbia & Montenegro

Really? No, but a man can dream! Though I'm certain enough to put it on my blog. Another June 10 match is critical here. I'm expecting Ivory Coast's physical approach to be enough to hold Argentina to a draw. This is the weakest Argentina team we've seen in some time and the pundits are not making a big enough deal of it. If the Ivory Coast v Argentina match ends in a draw, second place will come down to who scores more against Serbia & Montenegro, since they are both going to lose to the Netherlands, who will handily top this group. I'm expecting a few fluke goals for Ivory Coast, and some unlucky posts and crossbars for Argentina, to send debutants Ivory Coast through.

Group D
Mexico
Portugal
Iran
Angola

Iran and Angola really have no business being in the World Cup. Mexico and Portugal will qualify comfortably out of what is inarguably the weakest group in the competition, though who will top the group is up for speculation.

Group E
Czech Republic
Ghana
Italy
United States

Did you know that the Czech Republic are ranked second in the world, and Italy is ranked thirteenth? My predictions in this group are exactly reverse of what most people expect. But I think that this tournament's surprise packages (the European dark horse, and the African debutant Cinderella) are going to come out of this group. Also, I disagree with most who think Group C is the toughest. For me, this is the true "Group of Death" in Germany 2006. That being said, this finishing order is little more than wishful thinking on my behalf.

Group F
Brazil
Japan
Croatia
Australia

Need we say more?

Group G
France
South Korea
Switzerland
Togo

With Park Ji-Sun on his game, and France eager to prove that 2002 was a fluke, these two teams should have no problem going through.

Group H
Spain
Tunisia
Ukraine
Saudi Arabia

Sorry Shevchenko, put one player does not a team make. While many are picking Ukraine, not Czech Republic, to be the eastern European dark horse, I don't think they have the depth to overcome the traditional powerhouse and the African champions.

So to wrap up quickly: Argentina and Italy out early. Ghana and Czech Republic to go far.

But what about my final four? It's in Europe, so it will have to be mostly European teams. I'm going for Netherlands, England, Czech Republic, and Brazil. (Is that final four even possible? I don't know!)

Since you will all feel gypped if I don't pick a winner, I'll invoke the bias rule and pick England - man of the match, Theo Walcott! (-;

So come back after the group stage to see my knockout predictions and tell me how wrong I was!

Eternity in the hearts

2006-05-29T03:27:00.000+01:00

I heard the most amazing thing on Vancouver Island this weekend. I was visiting my cousin and her family for the first time in four and a half years.

We were sitting around the lunch table today; myself, my cousin, her 7 year-old son and her 5 year-old daughter. Our lunch of burritos and, for some bizarre reason, red wine, was going along quite uneventfully until my cousin's first-born spoke up in a soft voice and said, "I'm scared that the world is never going to end."

This blew my mind. Out of the mouths of babes; isn't that the saying? I looked at my cousin with saucer eyes and whispered out the side of my mouth, "Keep him talking on this."

This conversation was mind blowing. My cousin kept asking him "why are you scared?" and he answered "Because that would be bad." "Why would it be bad?" was the follow-up question, and he answered back with variations of "because then the world would just keep going and never stop." Which, to this 7 year-old, was a scary thought. And not because he thought we'd be alive for that whole time. No, he was fully aware that even if the world never stopped we'd be dead anyway. We asked him if he thought that we wouldn't be able to go to heaven if the world never ended (something that, to the best of my knowledge, only the Jehovah's Witnesses believe). He didn't think that either. No, the world never ending was scary to this child for a reason entirely different, which he couldn't quite put a finger on. His circular reasoning continued for a few minutes longer, until he floored us with this one: In response to his mum's question about why he was scared he replied, "It would never end and we'd miss a whole bunch of things."

Isn't that mind blowing? A child scared that the world might NOT end? The guest preacher at the downtown Victoria church today spoke about how the moral law of the universe is written on our conciousness, and though the Scriptures are severely helpful, our conscience tells us pretty much all we need to know in order to be moral beings. But don't you think that some basic preliminary understanding of God's eschaton is written in our minds? Don't we all, on some basic level, know and expect that the world is going to end?

King Solomon certainly felt this way, which is why hearing Zachary say it 3000 years after these words were written is pretty trippy: "He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end." Ecclesiates 3:11 NIV

"He has also set eternity in the hearts of men". The foreknowledge of the eternal Kingdom of God, planted in our consciousness from the moment we entered this world. And three thousand years later, little Zachary is scared that the world might never end -- "because we'd miss a whole bunch of things."

Losing is rough

2006-04-27T20:47:00.000+01:00

I made another Proline wager. This one was a whopping two dollars. It was only two dollars because I was not as confident about this set of predictions, but I decided to have a flutter just for fun anyway.

I picked Barcelona and AC milan to draw (it finished 0-0), West Ham United to lose to Liverpool (it finished 1-2) and Middlesbrough to beat Steaua Bucharest.

I'm watching the Boro-Bucharest game right now on a live internet feed (which is pretty cool actually - the Chinese commentary is the best part!) and Bucharest are winning 2-1 with 50 minutes remaining in the game. But Boro are just starting to hit their stride, so I'm not giving up hope yet - I could yet get $16 out of my $2 wager!

Proline is fun - just don't wager much, or take it seriously at all.

Winning twenty bucks

2006-04-24T03:27:00.000+01:00

So in case you were wondering, I won! I got the Arsenal-Tottenham match corrent, as you know, and then Newcastle United beat West Bromwich Albion 3-0, so I got that corrent as well. Then the Sevilla - Barcelona game got postponed due to a waterlogged pitch. In Pro-line rules, if a game is postponed your odds revert to 1:1, and your prediction is counted as "Correct". So with odds of 1.5:1 on the Newcastle match, and odds of 3.3:1 on the North London Derby, I can go to the shop tomorrow and collect about twenty dollars on my 4 dollar bet ! That might not seem like a lot of money. It's not. That's not the reason I bet on football. I do it to test my "soccer smarts". I'm always predicting the outcome of games, and I'm always saying after the fact that I knew that would happen. Well, it's a different ball game when you put your money where your mouth is, isn't it? I like to put a few bucks on some outcomes as a sort of reality check; to see if I really am as clever as I make myself out to be.

So far, my pro-line record is 1-1. Basically, after two wagers I'm thirteen dollars ahead of the game. The lesson is that even though I get most of my predictions right (I've only gotten one game wrong, out of the six I've wagered on), I'd better not quit my day job.

Sports Sports Sports

2006-04-22T15:28:00.000+01:00

Last night the Ottawa Senators came from behind to beat the Tampa Bay Lightning 4-1, while the Edmonton Oilers lost a heartbreaker in overtime in Detroit to the Redwings. The real heartbreak is how useless my fantasy hockey team is. I was in a hurry when I created it, and I ended up picking a bunch (read two) of players who aren't even in the playoffs! How silly is that?

So I'm 7th of 8 teams in my fantasy hockey playoff league. But Pro-line is a different story! I picked results for three football (soccer, for all you troglodites) matches (games, for all you neanderthals). One match was contested this morning, and I got my Arsenal v Tottenham prediction correct! I picked a draw (tie, for all you slow learners), and the final score was 1-1!
Teams in the Champion's League always tend to under-perform in the domestic league the weekend after playing a midweek European match, so that is why I picked a draw even though Arsenal were the home team and clear favourites.

The two games I am waiting on are Newcastle United v West Bromwich Albion, which is in progress, and tomorrow's clash between Sevilla and Barcelona. The Newcastle match is half an hour old already, and still no score, but I picked Newcastle to win. Even though they are playing without Alan Shearer, it is the first match back for Michael Owen since New Year's.

NEWSFLASH, NEWCASTLE JUST SCORED! NOLBERTO SOLANO IN THE 30TH MINUTE!!
---While I was typing this, the Peruvian Nobby Solano continued his brilliant form for Newcastle this season with a go-ahead goal, Newcastle are in front and West Brom are surely looking relegation in the face if they cannot come back here!---

So if that result stays as it is I only have one more match to worry about, and that is tomorrow's Spanish one. Even though Sevilla is good and Barcelona are the visiting team, Barcelona are the best in the world right now and it would be foolish to bet against them.

I could be on course for my first Pro-line win ever (though in fairness, this is only my second time ever playing Pro-Line)! Watch this space . . .

Loyalty

2006-04-20T03:10:00.000+01:00

Probably the most important value for me in a friendship is loyalty. Not a reciprocal "I'll scratch your back you scratch mine" sort of loyalty where you get paid back for your loyalty, but loyalty for its own sake. There is just something about a friend who, years on, will still count you a mate even when you've done nothing in particular to merit their friendship.

I mentioned a few posts back about how I have amazing friends. As I am coming to the end of my time here at Queen's University I am looking back and just becoming amazed at the brilliant number and quality of friends God has blessed me with. From the Castle cohort in 1st year, to the Campus Crusade for Christ crew in Kingston, to the AIA bunch I got to get to know this year, God has put incredible people in my path and the fact they I have been lucky enough to be counted as a friend to them is, to me, incredible.

Ok, well that's enough sentimentality for one evening I think! Goodnight world wide web, I'll see you again tomorrow.

d:?

2006-04-18T03:39:00.000+01:00

Well, as you know I went to a delirious? concert in Toronto on Saturday. I went with my friends Jobin and Steven, and we met Daniel, Mark and Mike there. Now I used to write long and detailed reviews of every concert I went to, but that soon became too tiresome given the number of concerts I went to! It was especially burdensome if went to a conference or festival and saw many bands in the same day, so for a while I only wrote reviews of delirious? concerts I went to, but then I lost even my penchant for that, and I haven't written one of these things in years. So before I run out of steam, here goes:

Date: 15 April 2006
band: delirious?
Venue: Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship, Toronto
Crowd: about 1500-2000 (I never really got a good look at the crowd to be honest)
Interesting facts: My 9th time seeing my favourite band, this was part of a weekend conference at a controversially charismatic church where we had concert-only tickets, so most of the kids there had already seen a few delirious? sets that weekend, while were only privy to the Saturday night performance.

The concert started with a local trance DJ, DJ Puddy. I don't like to criticise, but his 30 minute set was awful, so I'll just leave it at that.
As finished, a guy came up to introduce delirious? by rapping. Do you know who it was? For some of you this will be shocking, for others, obscure: Anthony McLean from CBC's The X! He rapped about his iPod: "Only one song left, you can't be serious - you know I'm gunna fill it up with . . . DELIRIOUS?!!!"

Delirious? took the stage, with Stu G wearing white floral print pants, a black shirt and a red tie. Tim Jupp sported a regular red shirt, and Martin had a black shirt, tres chic black jeans, a tie with thick red and black diagonal stripes, and a wicked little smoking jacket which sported four d:? buttons as though they were military medals. And Jon Thatcher wore that smashing pinstribe suit that the band had made their staple during the Audiolessonover/World Service days. Stew Smith wasn't on this tour, so substitute drummer Paul Evans took his place.

Delirious? walked onto stage and opened with "Here I am Send Me" from the new album. "How many people, put your hands up, how many people are here for just tonight?" asked Martin between songs. "Cool. This weekend has been great but tonight, tonight's gonna be great." And then they launched into "Rain Down" from World Service.
A stretched out version of my favourite song from The Mission Bell followed, as Stu G played a tight power chord and Martin asked "Are you ready to paint the town?" And they went into "Paint the Town Red." Then they did "Fires Burn" which was a lot better in concert than I expected it to be.

When they started "Solid Rock" I knew that something special was up. When they got to the bridge, the part that TobyMac signs on the album, Martin grabbed a megaphone that was plugged into the sound system and started singing through that! It did the coolest effect on his voice and he sang the bridge and the rest of the song through it! He held the thing above his head like the rockstar he is, and it looked really cool and Bono-ish.

Then they did "Inside Outside" and Martin opened his Bible and read from John 5 before they started singing "Miracle Maker". he concluded Miracle Maker with the lyric "And I'm standing with the faith of a History Maker," and then they went into that song. During the bridge of History Maker Martin spoke a short sermon about what it meant to be a history maker and they also sang a refrain of "Holy is the Lord".

Then they did some more Mission Bell stuff, with "Now is the Time" and a very moving and powerful version of "Take off My Shoes." After that I phoned my brother and let him listen in on a few minutes of "Majesty (Here I am)", and then the band sang "Our God Reigns", without singing the politically charged verses.

Then the conference speaker came up. He was an intense bloke. He did an alter call and some kids responded, then delirious? finished up their set.

They did "Investigate". I'm glad I got a four minute video of that, because Investigate is unquestionably delirious?'s best song in concert. "in . . . vestigate . . . my life . . . and make me clean"
They finished up, as they often do, with Martin holding a lit candle in front of the microphone and singing "There is a Light".

Notably absent from the set were the two most powerful songs from World Service. They didn't do either of "Mountains High" or "Every Little Thing".

After the concert, Jobin, Steve and I helped the roadies put the equipment away, and we got to meet Martin, Tim and Jon!!! I won't describe to you the feeling of meeting my favourite rockstar, because I just can't ! We got photos, it was so cool!

My day with delirious? What a night, what a band.

Onion pancakes

2006-04-17T03:27:00.000+01:00

My wonderful friend Adrienne invited me over to her place for pancakes with her housemates and some of their friends after church today. I am very grateful for my awesome friends, but something particular strikes me about them.

They are very driven people! By noon we had enjoyed some pancakes (the choices were between potato-and-onion pancakes and chocolate chip pancakes. No need to tell you which ones I picked!), and then everyone thanked our gracious hosts and sped off to the library! Imagine that! A weekend social event FINISHING by noon!

But these people are driven. They inspire me. They live with a purpose, and they work hard to acheive that purpose. So while we all had an awesome time, and a very competitive Easter egg hunt, there was no question about priorities when push came to shove.

People like that deserve the things they work for in life. I guess the reason I find it so amazing is because I don't work hard like that. Given the choice between socialising and studying, socialising wins out every time. It seems I have a lot to learn from my friends who know what they want in life and work hard to acheive it.

And as an aside, I am still walking on cloud nine after my experience 24 hours ago!

How to meet a rockstar

2006-04-16T08:34:00.000+01:00

So imagine who in the world you would most like to meet. Then imagine that you met him or her, and got a photograph of the two of you together so you could prove it to everyone. Then imagine how you would feel given such a situation.

If you've done all that, you have a pretty good idea of how I feel right now.
Finally, at the 9th time of asking, I got to meet Martin Smith, lead singer of delirious?. For years, if you had asked me "If you could meet anyone who would it be?", Martin Smith is the answer I would have given.

It's 0335 in the morning right now, so I won't continue. But just for future reference - the best way to meet a rockstar is to help their roadies load their equipment.

The return of ?

2006-04-13T05:58:00.000+01:00

Do I dare do this again? Have I moved beyond the rash, self-absorbed, short-sighted character that was evident the last time I kept a blog? Well, only time will tell.

As it stands, I wanted a place that I could post some of my reflections at the end of the day. I think about life a lot, and sometimes that stuff in my head just wants to spill out in words. I don't care if anyone reads it or not. I just want to get it out there and give myself a chance to clarify exactly what it is I am thinking.

As for today's reflections: I arranged a sublet for the summer, so I will have a place to live for the next four months. Praise God for his providence.
Well, actually, that's pretty much it. Nothing else positive to reflect on today.
Oh yeah, that is a caveat I should warn you about. My new strict rule is that I can only reflect on things that are not negative. The tenor of this blog will hopefully be a positive one.

I'll be back tomorrow - see ya.