Sometimes it's best to NOT explain things...

Click here to learn about leetspeak and save your kids from certain death! I'm still laughing this one off. Damn. Wish I had this back in 2nd year...

Pictures from the set of Firewall

So here I am on the set of Firewall throwing up the horns. This was one of the coolest/most exhausting experiences of my life. Getting to rock out for 450+ extras who are being PAID to cheer us on is something I can't really describe.

Apparently CityTV did a story on the shoot last night at 6pm. I will be getting a VHS copy of it transfered to digital so if you would like to see it let me know. The story has a few interviews with people from the church (Kevin, Chelsea) and others I think. Most importantly, yours truly got some face time on TV with a close up and some severe rockin' out clips. Woot.

Below are some other pictures taken from the set. One is of our all round nice guy/custodian Hank with his secret crush Mary Lynn (Chloe from 24). The other pic is of Karen and Julie posing with Matt who plays Bobby in the movie. Matt played bass in the scene with us and often got me and Rick in trouble by spurring us to do impromptu jam sessions while the lighting guys were working. He also spent the day trying to make up names for our fake band, some of which included...

• Jesus and the Jumping 12
• The Tragically Jesus
• Van Jesus
• Jesus of the Stone Age
• The Gospel Freaks
  

Hank with secret girlfriend Mary Lynn (Chloe from 24)


Karen and Julie pose with Matt (da bass player)

Done being a movie star...

So I just got home from shooting FIREWALL, the new Harrison Ford movie that comes out sometime this fall. We were rocking up the sanctuary at my church with some loud boistrous rock and roll with over 400 extras cheering us on. It was alot of fun and draining at the same time. My legs feel like they are going to fall off.

I will post a picture from the set as soon as I get a copy from Julie who was quite camera happy today. She snapped a picture of Hank (our janitor/boxer) with Mary Ann R(something or other) who plays Chloe on 24. Too cute. No real star power beyond that today, but I shook hands and chatted with the directors and a good number of the lighting guys. It is insane how much work is done outside of shooting time that is pivotal to the creation of a movie. A good 30/45 minutes were spent setting up the camera and the lighting for each 30 second shot.

Anyhoo, I'm gearing up for the big 2 hour finale of 24 tonight (GO CHLOE!). I shall write more on this if I remember more.

Cheers

It's Good, Not Great, But Good

There, that's better. An opposition party is always nice to have. Do I like the NDP? Not really. Do I prefer the Liberals? Nope. Am I a cynical bastard? Yes.

I'm not a fan of party politics mainly because of their single-minded ideologies. How can we find middle ground and moderate solutions if people won't budge from the party line? The NDP loves unions, public ownership and despises big business. The Liberals love corporations and would like nothing less than the complete destruction of unions. Is either ideology a good idea? Of course not. Extreme positions rarely hold a sustainable solution as there is nothing to keep them in check with reality.

What do I suggest? Nothing. I'm not that clever. But I will say that this election outcome is good as it doesn't give one ideology free reign on the province. The Liberals will have to deal with Question Period with actual tact now. With an estimated 46 seats for the Liberals and 33 for the NDP, this will be much more "fair and balanced" than the previous government.

As far as specifics go, Delta-South went as I feared. Splitting 56.94% of the vote between Dileep Athaide (NDP) and Vicki Huntington (Ind.), Val Roddick was re-elected with only 37.65%. Vicki lost the seat by only 100 votes! To all who said, "My vote doesn't count" and stayed home SHAME ON YOU! That's the most idiotic protest argument I've ever heard. "Government doesn't represent me so I won't vote for it." Sigh.

Val, the Province said under your picture that you were "instrumental in saving Delta Hospital's ER." I haven't heard the specifics, but YOU were on the committe that suggested it be closed so you better change your tune and fix what you started. Four years pass very quickly. Next time, you may not be so lucky.

Just when you thought you've seen everything

Belinda Stronach has crossed the floor, leaving the federal Conservative party to join the sinking ship known as the Liberal party. Paul Martin must be happy, he now has 151 votes against the 152 of the Conservative/Bloc alliance. With 3 independants serving currently, this could be the most entertaining budget vote ever. Oddly, look who one of those indies is... none other than Martin's Golden Girl Carolyn Parish! Ooooh, the irony. Martin's frail government now depends on the ousted, Bush-doll stomping MP. Neat.

But it is probably not going to matter. Chuck Cadman is another indie from Surrey who will most likely vote for the Conservatives unless he is convinced otherwise. He has stated that he hasn't decided yet and the fact that a No vote from him could result in another election could persuade him to go Yes. If he does vote Yes and the third indie votes No, the tie-breaking vote will come from the Liberal MP Peter Millikin who is the Speaker of the House. Neat.

Gotta love Canadian politics.

Matthew Good Update

First off, check out this picture book Matt put together for his website. Very well done. Wonder how long it is until Lego sues him.

Also, I just heard that Matt will return to a studio in Vancouver to record a variety of acoustic versions of his songs for an upcoming fall release: In A Coma – Matthew Good 1995-2005. Finally, we will get a professional quality acoustic mix of Apparitions on cd. Woot. My question, when do we get the next album of new material? I want to hear how Ryan and Meegee sound on tape!

With Teeth is Number 1

The new Nine Inch Nails album "With Teeth" debuted last week at Number 1 on the Billboard Top 100 Albums. This should quickly put to rest the critics who claim that Trent lost his fans by releasing the lengthy album "The Fragile" and then going into hiding for 6 years.

I saw the reviewer on Amazon.com state that NIN is a one trick pony, but that it is a really great trick. There is some truth to that statement, but at the heart it cheapens the work Trent does on his music. Have you ever heard a song by NIN that sounded so similar to another track that you would get them confused? (ie: Nickelback / Linken Park...) When you are dealing with heavy industrial music, this should not be overlooked. As one of the few remaining creative and totally original songwriters in modern music, Trent has a record of taking risks and releasing music that is honest, open and intimate. So much so, that fans that dig into his words are often rewarded for their efforts. These are the fans that made this album debut at number 1.

If you have never listened to NIN before or have been put off by their previous releases due to the dark brooding sound they have, then check out this new disc. It is much more accessible and lighter than the others and has some of Trent's best work in decades.

Monday, Bloody Monday

Yawn.

So on the bus this morning we drove past the line of crazy sign wavers promoting local candidates for the Provincial Election. Since when did getting a bunch of people to wave signs constitute a political campaign? I found it funny that the NDP candidate managed to get roughly triple the number of sign wavers as Val Roddick did this morning. Man, she looked kinda retarded waving her flag in her long red coat. I felt like waving back in a gesture of "Goodbye! Don't let the door hit you in the ass!"

I'm not really against the Liberal's plan to have a more streamlined government and better fiscal management. No, I'm more against how they plan to achieve that goal. Cutting taxes and then saying they can't afford essential services like health care and schools seems like a prescription for a future without much hope. But on the other hand, there's the NDP who have not managed to convince me that they will buck their ideology and be rational individuals and vote in the peoples' best interests and not the interests of their Union-based voter base. Then we have the Greens who still have failed to get their platform clearly across to the voters. Sure they have information out there for people to find, but that's not good enough. If they ever plan to get elected, they need to get a real grassroots movement behind them in a Howard Dean-esque manner... sans the YEEEEEEEEEARRRRRRG speech in the 11th hour of the campaign.

Thankfully, there is another option in our riding. Vicky Huntington is a rational liberal who is furious about the way the party has dealt with our hospital. Having a person in government who is directly accountable to the voters (since she is not and will not align with a party) is something that I would like to see more of in BC politics. To help this along, please vote yes on the STV. Let's see if we can change this system to one where we vote IN people rather than vote them OUT.

God's Own Party?

By Jim Wallis
Sojourners

Several weeks ago, Episcopal priest and former Republican Senator John Danforth began an op-ed in the New York Times by writing: "By a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians." And, I would add, some Religious Right leaders are trying to transform the church into the religious arm of conservative Republicans. Either way, these partisan attempts to hijack faith and politics are wrong.

Yet each week brings a new outrage. This week's news was of a Baptist church in North Carolina, where nine members, including three deacons, say they had their membership revoked because they were Democrats who supported John Kerry. According to the Charlotte News-Observer, the nine walked out of a church meeting when Pastor Chan Chandler asked them to sign documents agreeing with his political views. When they left, members remaining voted to terminate their membership.

While the pastor has attributed it to a "misunderstanding," the former members say that last fall he told the congregation that anyone who planned to vote for Kerry should either leave the church or repent. One, a 75-year-old deacon, told the News-Observer: "He went on and on about how he's going to bring politics up, and if we didn't agree with him we should leave. I think I deserve the right to vote for who I want to." News reports today indicate that Pastor Chandler is resigning.

It's the latest outrage in a continuing pattern. Last year, news stories included Republicans seeking church membership lists and mailing postcards implying Democrats wanted to ban the Bible. Just a few weeks ago, Religious Right speakers held what they billed as "Justice Sunday - Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith" in support of President Bush's judicial nominees. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council was quoted in the New York Times as saying Democrats "have targeted people for reasons of their faith or moral position."

Because many other religious voices spoke to challenge the attempt to make God a partisan, President Bush, to his credit, repudiated the equation of faith with his policies. He was asked at his recent press conference whether he thought filibusters against nominees were "an attack against people of faith." He replied: "I think people are opposing my nominees because they don't like the judicial philosophy of the people I've nominated.... I don't ascribe a person's opposing my nominations to an issue of faith."

Then, on ABC's This Week, George Stephanopoulos asked Pat Robertson about his statement that "the out-of-control judiciary, and this was in your last book Courting Disaster, is the most serious threat America has faced in nearly 400 years of history, more serious than al Qaeda..." Robertson replied: "George, I really believe that. I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together...the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings."

This latest news from North Carolina is the logical, inevitable result of the road the Religious Right and some Republicans have taken.

It is the assumption that Christians must accept one partisan political position on issues, or be accused of not being Christian. This is an assumption we must reject. Rather, we must insist on the deep connections between spirituality and politics while defending the proper boundaries between church and state that protect religious and nonreligious minorities and keep us all safe from state-controlled religion. We can demonstrate our commitment to pluralistic democracy and support the rightful separation of church and state without segregating moral and spiritual values from our political life. Abraham Lincoln, in his famous Second Inaugural Address, said of the two sides in the Civil War: "Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other." He would say the same today.

The Republican Party is not God's own party, as the Religious Right and some Republican leaders seem to be suggesting. And, of course, neither is the Democratic Party. We must say it again and again until it is heard and understood: God is not partisan; God is not a Republican or a Democrat. When either party tries to politicize God, or co-opt religious communities for its political agenda, it makes a terrible mistake. God's politics challenge all our politics. Our faith must not be narrowed to the agenda of one political party.

Jim Wallis is convener of Call to Renewal, a network of churches and faith-based organizations working to overcome poverty, and editor of Sojourners magazine. He is also the author of the best-selling book "God's Politics."

Day 113 of the President's Silence

By Nicholas D. Kristof
The New York Times

Tuesday 03 May 2005

Finally, finally, finally, President Bush is showing a little muscle on the issue of genocide in Darfur.

Is the muscle being used to stop the genocide of hundreds of thousands of villagers? No, tragically, it's to stop Congress from taking action.

Incredibly, the Bush administration is fighting to kill the Darfur Accountability Act, which would be the most forceful step the U.S. has taken so far against the genocide. The bill, passed by the Senate, calls for such steps as freezing assets of the genocide's leaders and imposing an internationally backed no-fly zone to stop Sudan's Army from strafing villages.

The White House was roused from its stupor of indifference on Darfur to send a letter, a copy of which I have in my hand, to Congressional leaders, instructing them to delete provisions about Darfur from the legislation.

Mr. Bush might reflect on a saying of President Kennedy: "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality."

Aside from the effort to block Congressional action, there are other signs that the administration is trying to backtrack on Darfur. The first sign came when Condoleezza Rice gave an interview to The Washington Post in which she deflected questions about Darfur and low-balled the number of African Union troops needed there.

Then, in Sudan, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick pointedly refused to repeat the administration's past judgment that the killings amount to genocide. Mr. Zoellick also cited an absurdly low estimate of Darfur's total death toll: 60,000 to 160,000. Every other serious estimate is many times as high. The latest, from the Coalition for International Justice, is nearly 400,000, and rising by 500 a day.

This is not a partisan issue, for Republicans and the Christian right led the way in blowing the whistle on the slaughter in Darfur. As a result, long before Democrats had staggered to their feet on the issue, Mr. Bush was telephoning Sudan's leader and pressing for a cease-fire there.

Later, Mr. Bush forthrightly called the slaughter genocide, and he has continued to back the crucial step of a larger African Union force to provide security. Just the baby steps Mr. Bush has taken have probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

So why is Mr. Bush so reluctant to do a bit more and save perhaps several hundred thousand more lives? I sense that there are three reasons.

First, Mr. Bush doesn't see any neat solution, and he's mindful that his father went into Somalia for humanitarian reasons and ended up with a mess.

Second, Mr. Bush is very proud - justly - that he helped secure peace in a separate war between northern and southern Sudan. That peace is very fragile, and he is concerned that pressuring Sudan on Darfur might disrupt that peace while doing little more than emboldening the Darfur rebels (some of them cutthroats who aren't negotiating seriously).

Third, Sudan's leaders have increased their cooperation with the C.I.A. As The Los Angeles Times reported, the C.I.A. recently flew Sudan's intelligence chief to Washington for consultations about the war on terror, and the White House doesn't want to jeopardize that channel.

All three concerns are legitimate. But when historians look back on his presidency, they are going to focus on Mr. Bush's fiddling as hundreds of thousands of people were killed, raped or mutilated in Darfur - and if the situation worsens, the final toll could reach a million dead.

This Thursday marks Holocaust Remembrance Day. The best memorial would be for more Americans to protest about this administration's showing the same lack of interest in Darfur that F.D.R. showed toward the genocide of Jews. Ultimately, public pressure may force Mr. Bush to respond to Darfur, but it looks as if he will have to be dragged kicking and screaming by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Granted, Darfur defies easy solutions. But Mr. Bush was outspoken and active this spring in another complex case, that of Terry Schiavo. If only Mr. Bush would exert himself as much to try to save the lives of the two million people driven from their homes in Darfur.

So I'm going to start tracking Mr. Bush's lassitude. The last time Mr. Bush let the word Darfur slip past his lips publicly (to offer a passing compliment to U.S. aid workers, rather than to denounce the killings) was Jan. 10. So today marks Day 113 of Mr. Bush's silence about the genocide unfolding on his watch.