Well played, The Guardian.

He and Kaka are the sort of players who prompt comparisons with other forms of art. Music, most obviously. Ronaldo’s mode is allegro molto vivace, with a pronounced fondness for bursts of staccato phrasing via those quick-stepping feet, his unorthodoxy extending to the fearless introduction of techniques that others might unveil only in rehearsal, for the amusement of their colleagues. Kaka plays at a permanent andante cantabile, with a sweetly flowing grace, his devastating sprint a thing of seemingly unhurried beauty, his body swaying as one change of direction blends seamlessly into another.

My Hope-O-Meter was at close to zero for this game. It will droop even lower for the second leg but, if it is half as good as this one was, I’ll enjoy it immensely even if, as I fear, we don’t win.

I was reading the comments on that Matthew Parris essay in The Times (better than you might think), when I came across this one

Apparently, Matthew, your ‘fascination’ with Christianity does not stretch to exploring, discussing or even considering the historicity of its core event - the resurrection from the dead of a corpse. If this happened, it warrants the teaching of the greatest man who ever lived, and you simply can’t then dismiss him or what he said as irrelevant. If not, then I agree that the whole thing is a sham.

So weigh the evidence. At least it might give you some cause for respect for people like CS Lewis and countless scientists the world over who find, like me, that Christianity and science gel because they are two views of reality, the one from God’s standpoint, the other from ours.

David White, Northampton, UK

and it struck me that I have never heard a Christian put the question in such stark terms. Was there a resurrection, or wasn’t there?

It’s striking because it is the kind of question an atheist would ask.

Was there a resurrection or wasn’t there?

Striking and refreshing.

I liked Matthew Parris even when he was a Tory MP and it was unfashionable to like Tory MPs…

I hate ending up in scraps with nice Anglicans and thoughtful Catholics because the Church of England and intelligent Catholicism are not the problem. They are the best kind of Christians, but the best lack all conviction. It is the worst who are full of passionate intensity. Look at the evangelical movement in America, and to some extent, now, here. Look at the Religious Right in Israel. Look at fundamentalist Islam. What they share, what drives them, the tiger in their tanks, is an absolute, unshakeable belief in an ever-present divinity, with plans for nations that He communicates to the leaders, or would-be leaders, of nations. They are the very devil, these people, they could wreck our world, and their central belief in God’s plan has to be confronted. Confronted with passion. Confronted because, and on the ground that, it is not true.

Go read his essay in The Times.

Re “A Sharp Turn for the Supreme Court on Abortion” (letters, April 20):

I am a rheumatologist caring for a patient whose lupus nephritis is flaring. Her creatinine is rising as her platelet count falls, and she has failed to improve with pulse methylprednisolone and intravenous cyclophosphamide. I am contemplating using rituximab. I would like to refer this case to the United States Supreme Court for its guidance.

Richard Zweig, M.D.
Santa Rosa, Calif., April 20, 2007

This, from the New York Times letter page, about captures my view on the abortion debate.

Cristiano and Wayne. They are the leading candidates for the presidents of the universe.

I posted before I watched the whole show - I should have waited. It just got better and better.

Well done both Johns but, in particular, well done John Stewart for making your point about the nature of patriotism. I’ve waited 4 years for that.

Outstanding show.

Well done John McCain! Outstanding performance! He should have John Stewart as his running mate though.