We have been beaten.. in hockey.

Uugh. Let the criticism begin. Canada loses in hockey in the Quarter Finals. In the Olympics. In Canada. We did not make this up.

We were unable to put together any sort of offensive pressure against the Russians. How could a team with Joe Sakic, Jarome Iginla, Rick Nash, Joe Thorton.. score a total of three goals in four games against legitimate hockey nations (if you consider Switzerland a legitimate contender.. Italy and Germany certainly aren't), being shut out three times.

???

I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to start slinging blame where I think blame is due (in no particular order):

• Todd Bertuzzi. Simply stated, he should not have been in Turin. He lost the right to play for Canada with his vicious attack on Steve Moore. Taking a stupid penalty that led to the winning Russian goal is the icing on the cake.
  
• The media. They kept on pushing this "Betzky" story, asking Canadian players and officials if it would have an effect on them. What they fail to realize is the only reason it would affect anyone is because the media kept on asking them about it. A self fulfilling prophecy. And couldn't they have left alone the Steve Moore lawsuit until after the Olympics ended? (No, I'm not contradicting myself here - Bertuzzi shouldn't have been on the team, but the media exacerbated the situation).
• Undisciplined play. Team Canada took a lot of stupid penalties at inopportune times - case in point, the penalties to Vinnie LaCavalier and Chris Pronger when Canada was trying to overcome a one goal deficit to the Russians.
  
• The coach. Team Canada didn't seem to apply much offensive pressure, or have any real strategy for controlling play. And I place the blame for that one, as well as on the players, with Pat Quinn. You know how the Leafs often play undisciplined hockey, while making plays that have no hope of succeeding? I don't think it's a coincedence that Team Canada played in the same way.
• The players. Some of the guys really didn't play like they wanted to be there, like this tournament was important to Canadians and thus deserving of their whole effort. They did not play as a team. I mean, these guys are professionals. Say all I will about everything around them, but at the end of the day, they didn't put pucks in the net, and that's all that counts in the end.
• Wayne Gretzky. He made some questionable choices for Team Canada, namely Todd Bertuzzi. I don't see how guys like Eric Staal and Jason Spezza couldn't make the team.
• The NHL. I think if they really want to see our best players play at their best, they need to stop play earlier, to give the teams more time to get to know each other. Fat chance of getting Bettman to agree to that one, though.

In all, a terribly disappointing day at the arena, to the point where it seemed to overshadow Canada's amazing successes the same day in Turin - gold medals for Cindy Klassen and Chandra Crawford, silver for Kristina Groves and our short-track relay team.

Oh well.. at least the Women's team won gold. But what's the deal with getting a penalty for body checking?

There, I told you. Now I'll have to kill you.

Religion

In the tradition of Oolon Coluphid's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters: Where God Went Wrong, Some More Of God's Greatest Mistakes, and Who Is This God Person Anyway?, I'm going to talk about my views on religion in this posting. More specifically, is there a god? And if not, does religion serve a purpose?

This posting is actually inspired by a friend's blog posting, (there's supposed to be some form of automatic linking between blogs, so I've heard - but I'll be damned if I know how to do it) because I have a slightly different opinion on the issue.

Let me start by saying I've never been to church, other than for weddings, funerals, and other non-religious events (band practices, high school graduation, concerts, etc.). Not once. Does this mean I'm a heathen infidel, bound for hell (or whatever equivalent depending on your religious beliefs)? I think not.

I declare myself officially agnostic. This means, while I do not believe in a god or deity, I - unlike athiests - do not rule out the possibility of one or more existing.

I don't believe there is a god
I have a problem with believing that there is a god, as I have never met him (or her - but for the remainder I'll use the masculine pronoun), nor have I encountered any phenomena that could only be explained by divine intervention. That is, there is no proof that god(s) exist(s) - and I'm not someone who generally accepts things on blind faith.

You see, the thing is - if there is a god, and he wanted me to believe he existed, he would be able to do it very easily. He could show himself to me as I type this blog post. Right now.

(waits a few seconds..)

Alas, god (if he exists) has chosen not to do so - and hence I cannot, at this time, say I believe in a god.

.. but one might exist
That said, I cannot rule out the existance of a god. Just because he refuses the demand that he present himself to me does not mean that he does not exist - just that he has decided in his divine wisdom (for which us lowly humans will never be able to comprehend) that it's better for us (or, maybe, more amusing for him) to not know for certain.

And thus, I find the premise of athiesm - that god does not exist - too strong to accept.


So what does this all mean?
We - as human beings - alone cannot prove the existance of god. Only god himself (if he exists) can prove that he exists by showing himself to us. We also cannot prove that god does not exist - because an omnipotent deity could simply make it appear to us that it does not exist. And therein lies the trap of mixing science and religion, as some places in the US of A have done by forcing schools to teach "intelligent design" (essentially creationism - I'd say at least 95% - a figure I just pulled out of my ass to support my claim - of the supporters of ID believe the designer is a god). Because the problem with a god is it leaves no room for science - if god exists, everything can be explained as being his will rather than occuring from natural phenomena. Why'd it rain today? God wanted it to - we should pray to the rain god and sacrifice an animal in his honour. How'd humans get on this planet? God did it. How'd the universe come into existance? God did it. Why am I writing this now? God made me do it. So science has to operate on the assumption that god does not exist, while religion is unwilling to accept scientific findings that contradict their religious texts.

Anyway, that's all I've got to say about that for now.

Many Bothans died to bring you this information.

So I've got one of those blog dealies now..

Now that this blogging thing is getting popular, I figured I'd better get in on it. Why should you read this blog? Um, I dunno - because you have no life and will read any and everything to pass the time? Because you (dis)agree with my opinions and commentary? Know me and want to get some more information that might not otherwise come out in conversation? Who knows? Certainly I don't.

Well, now to get on with the actual blogging. To borrow a phrase from Peter Griffin of Family Guy - you know what really grinds my gears? Web sign up forms. Not all of them, but some are just so poorly designed and annoying to use. For instance, when creating this blog account, I had to create a username and a password. Turns out, the username I originally wanted was already taken (OK, no biggie).. but after I submitted it, and the browser told me of this error, the password field was blank. There was nothing at all wrong with my password, but for some reason, the webpage designer decided it would be a good thing for me to reenter the same thing that I just had done a minute ago. Why? Who knows. But annoying, unnecessary, and poorly designed.

And so that concludes my first blog entry.