Absolutely Quackers

The newest roof in Wimbledon

2009-06-30T21:30:00.002+01:00

Well well well. Having spent the past seven day gathering cobwebs on it pristine white surface, the much-heralded Wimbledon roof made its 'debut' at the All England Club yesterday. And what an entrance.

Because a stadium is defined by the occasions it hosts, not the structure or architecture of the building it takes place in.

Wembley's twin towers, as much of a spectacle as they were, only became iconic because hundreds of thousands of fans linked them to memorable FA Cup final days out, or even that great day in the summer of '66.

The proof of this is most harshly illustrated in the failures. Bold new football stadia such at Pride Park, the Reebok Stadium and the Stadium of Light (Sunderland, not Benfica) are hardly iconic sporting venues because - by and large - they host mediocrity.

Arsenal's Emirates Stadium is just beautiful. But so far it has only been associated with chronic under-achievement and a slightly deluded Frenchman interested more in education than sport.

And so we come to Centre Court. It's baptism was transformed from a gentle splash by a fumbling vicar (excuse the water puns) into a full-immersion spectacular by the Murray-Wawrinka match.

The court in its covered form will take time to establish its full character. A hopelessly wet fortnight would be interesting, with all the key games played indoors.

But if the roof carries on hosting five-set epics (and British victories) I, for one, am certain to become quite fond of it.

That was the week that was

2009-05-16T13:19:00.005+01:00

Well well, it has been a long time since I visted you - poor, neglected blog. Let's 'quack' on, anyway.

This most certainly won't be the only blog post on the past week in politics, but it seems like the best way of getting me back on the blog-train, if a little predictable.

What a fuss it's been. Firstly, I'm not convinced it has come out as it should have done. 'Chequebook journalism' at its worst. Easy to be wise after the event, but if it has come out (as planned) from parliament then the damage (and, admittedly, the shame) would have been less drawn out. This episode has put me off politics, but it's also put me off the Daily Telegraph. They aren't doing this out of public service, they are doing it to sell papers. Simple as that. And paying a questionably (il)legal fee in the process.

Most worryingly, however, is the damaging effect on the political process. It provides those apathetic voters with an easy excuse not to vote. The up-coming European Elections are now a real worry. The worrying trend of more extreme politcal forces taking strides into politics will no doubt be significantly accelerated as a result.

Beyond that, I simply have two observations.

Firstly, I was hugely relieved that Stephen Fry brought some much-need sanity to the debate. Even though he soon regretted how he had been portrayed.

And finally, how do we learn from this? Well, as with most things, there's already some good teaching on this subject. People just choose not to listen. The Good Book has its own contribution, as I was reminded when a timely message popped into my inbox this Friday. Interesting view about how the law can sometimes get in the way of working out what is right and wrong.

My book

2009-03-16T21:29:00.002Z

This not-yet-epic work of fiction has been long in the pipeline. But I truly believe that everyone has a novel in them. Some may not be any good, but there's one there nonetheless.

So I'm aiming high. Think Brideshead Revisited meets Spooks. Please, humour me at least for a while ...

There's a plan somewhere in place, I've got a few characters sketched out. I've even written a prologue (not sure whether this will stay or not), and a couple of chapters.

The hope is that my blog will spur me on to write even more.

On the other hand, it could be a distraction that will drain my creative (?) resources.

We'll have to wait and see.

Info-tainment

2009-03-16T21:26:00.002Z

Top Gear set the standard. High Altitude has just raised the bar, surely? I'm not bothered by skiiing (tried it once, was pretty rubbish) but this is TV presenting at it best. Real, funny, outrageous. Shake off your cynicism and make sure you don't miss the next episode.

More pop-theology

2009-03-14T14:00:00.004Z

If you'll excuse the pop-theology from last time, I've had more on my mind since. This time's it's about the all-encompassing nature of worship.
Listening to a podcast from the guys at www.worshipcentral.org made me think about how much we can express through worship. They were talking about the inextricable link between prayer and worship, even though some people try to separate the two, which only serves to diminish the power of both.
Not only does it give voice to all that God is, worship can be all things to all people (well, all Christians, at least).
It is the bowing down, while also a the lifting up in praise. It is deeply personal, yet has a corporately unifying power. It stills our hearts and minds to the still small voice of God, yet simultaneously breathes great power. It is prayer. It is (mostly) biblical.
It is at times repenting, exulting, pleading, relating, but it is always being. Just being in the presence of an almighty heavenly father.
Above all it's awesome, moving people to tears and bringing great joy.
Celebrate in it, don't limit it. That's my simple plea.

Science v Religion

2009-03-09T21:29:00.000Z

The fact that these two schools are set up as opposing forces simply defies belief. The challenge that science has set itself to find out "how our brains generate religious ideas" (http://tinyurl.com/c5xrsk) is certainly a tough one.

As for me, I'll simply turn to the most fascintating DVD I've ever seen: Rob Bell's 'Everything is Spiritual'. It does exactly what it says on the tin. From an unashamedly religious perspective, it explains how both scientific and religious 'fundamentalists' can in fact be very happy neighbours. Because, as its title says, everything is spiritual - even the richest complexities of science.

Lane hogs

2009-02-18T14:51:00.000Z

Please note that driving at 70mph does not entitle you to sit in the middle lane of the motorway. Quite simply, just don't do it.

And claiming you're distracted by thinking about the non-echo of quacking ducks won't hold any water with me.

In advance of your co-operation, thank you.

A matter of debatable interest

2009-02-17T13:54:00.000Z

Apparently, a duck's quack doesn't echo. Or so I'm told.

There seems to be some debate on this matter. Perhaps over time the musings of these pages will help us reach some kind of satisfactory conclusion.

I'll return, hopefully armed with more evidence, before too long.