Y Safle

I’m off for a few days, so I thought I would leave something reasonably light before I went. The article below is about a trip we took some of our Youth Group on a few years ago.

Friday was hot. Not just your average beginning of August warm, but hot sticky thunderstorm weather. Well it’s been like that all week of course. In fact it’s been like that all summer – but who’s complaining? Still, it’s just as well that we didn’t leave Aber until six in the evening. By the time I had collected Gareth, Huw, Amos, Gareth, Alun, Justin and Gareth and having waited for Gareth Williams to figure out the seatbelt mechanism and then having driven out to Cwmystwyth, the temperature had dropped to something near comfortable.

We stopped for our first food stop just outside the minibus doors (well its hard work climbing down that minibus step you know), and then our glorious Mountain Leader (Amos) disappeared to have a long chat with one of the locals, leaving us with no choice but to have our first drink stop too.

Eventually we left the minibus and set off up a large track which went up a large hill. A very large hill in fact. Some would say too large, so not surprisingly when we reached the top it was time for another food stop.

For the observant, we had already passed a hanging valley, a river, a marsh and some very interesting insectivoress plants.

We carried on then down into a river valley, crossed the river (a raging torrent is not how one would describe it). Amos and I were quite hoping someone would fall in at this point, just so we could explain why we insisted on a change of clothes! Unfortunately no one obliged. We then followed the river up to the mountain bothy.

Well that was when we found out we were not alone!!. No, someone else had also trecked all the way out here to Nant Rhys and was already installed in the bothy, with the stove lit and a kettle on. It took several minutes to explain to Huw that we really didn’t know who he was!!

The weather was so warm that we eventually decided to sleep outside, so we collected and cut firewood, set a small fire, cooked our evening meal, heard about the shepherd of Nant Rhys (and other ghost stories) and lay down among the swarms of gibbons* (!!!) with the vaguest intentions of going to sleep.

Well we didn’t go to sleep, but we saw plenty of shooting stars, as well as a few satellites, and just about every other star visible to the naked eye. Meanwhile we had more ghost stories, as well as discussions of a certain girl who works in the chip shop and other such weighty matters. Amos managed to fall asleep shortly after midnight, but it was gone two before everybody else shut up.

Everyone was awake again by six the following morning, which was far too early so we all went for a walk into the forestry looking for replacement firewood. Before we eventually set off home we had to fill in the Nant Rhys visitor’s book of course, and after Gareth Williams’ astute observation I decided it should be his job to take all the litter home with him! (Anyone wanting to know what this observation was will have to go to Nant Rhys and look at the visitors book themselves)!

There was some discussion of short cuts and eventually Alun decided that he would lead everyone across the “quick route” back – cross country across the peat lands. Amos and I had a bit of a break to give them a suitable head start and then walked around on the track. When we heard the shouts we knew they had found the boggy bits!

When everyone else managed to get back on the path, joining Amos and me, I’m sure they had gained a much greater appreciation for the benefits of a path – and a much lesser appreciation for Alun’s short cuts!!

Everyone agreed it had been excellent fun. We would all do it over again without hesitation!

*Gibbon – Either another name for Alun, or else Alun’s name for a ladybird.**

**Ladybird – A flesh eating carnivorous beetle which normally feeds on aphids, but in times of drought in Wales it swarms to the west coast and has been known to eat whole campers at night.

Immigration is a big deal in many Western countries. We have this huge differential between the lifestyles of the priveleged Western nations and the vast majority of the population of the world who subsist as best they can.

We created this world. European and American agricultural protectionism locks developing countries out of our markets. Our pillage of natural resources for the benefit of our own economies has little benefit for those beyond our borders, although the damage of climate change knows no borders, and disproportionately affects the poor. We have allowed and continue to allow the political instability and despotism that causes misery abroad, so long as it is good for our economies.

And then people choose to flee that crushing poverty, and the dangerous political instability. They try to come to our nations, to make a new life and generate some of that wealth that they see to support their own loved ones.

Our response? Lock them out. Send them home. Build fences and barriers.

There is a saying used much in the Church today and over the past few years: what would Jesus do?

Would the attitude of Jesus be “send them home?” Would he deny them access, build barriers, and lock them out?

People are people wherever they are, and if we dehumanise the economic refugee, we dehumanise ourselves. Jesus would not have done this. His commandment was to love one another, and he never once limited that to any particular racial group.

So Christians should be the first to oppose barriers to entry to our nations. We should welcome immigrants to our shores for as long as they want to come.

“But”, someone will say, “what happens when the nation is full? What happens when we cannot support any more immigrants?”

Capitalist nations have a notion of a free market. Free marketeers believe that the market should be allowed to regulate itself (although really no nation has a free market – we all have regulation to protect our own industries). Notice the problem here. As long as our markets are protected and we hoarde the world’s wealth to ourselves, people will want to migrate here. If we create a more equitable world, then the tide of economic refugees will be stopped.

So what will we do? Welcome immigration and dismantle the economic protectionism that keeps the developing world poor. Share our wealth and our land. That is surely what Jesus would do?

And a lsat point: Europeans have gone off having big families. As a consequence we have aging populations with insufficient labour markets to support our economies. If the problem is that we don’t have enough people then we need to import people! Let the immigrants come. They enrich our culture and strengthen our economy. At the same time let us create the world where people do not have to leave their homes and loved ones just to survive.

Christian Aid’s website has the leader Body blow to world poor as World Trade Organisation talks sink.

This is and indictment on the EU (the world’s largest economy), the U.S.A and Japan and their protectionist policies that keep us rich whilst locking the poor countries of the world out of our markets.

The unremarkable failure of leadership from the largest world economies is only matched by the apathy of the electorates of the same. When we vote, how many of us ask our potential MEPs, or national governments what heir stance will be on the protectionism that brings so much misery to the world?

Instead of asking such pertinent questions, we are enjoined to consider our own job markets and our own prosperity – as though we don’t already have enough of what we have that we cannot afford to share? And as though opening up our markets will really make us poorer, when we could be richer.

What is the core of the problem? Peter Mandelson blames the U.S.A, which is languishing under the rudderless Bush presidency, and meandering towards mid term elections.

There is probably truth in Mandelson’s claims, but the E.U. Common Agricultural Policy really must be systematically dismantled. Agricultural subsidy should be aimed at maintenance of the countryside, and not based on production of goods that people don’t want for prices people won’t pay.

And Mandelson may be right about the U.S.A, but his old friend Tony Blair, who got him his Brussels job, completely blew our best chance at CAP reform when he surrendered the UK’s best bargaining chip to force France to wean itself off agricultural subsidy, by giving away much of the UK rebate for nothing more than the chance for Tony Blair to say his presidency reached a budget settlement.

We should have offered the whole rebate for the chance to completely transform the CAP.

And next time there is an election – ask your candidate what their position is on trade protectionism.

According to BBC NEWS, MySpace, the world’s most popular social networking website, has been shut down after a power outage.

My own web service has been patchy recently, with a number of short breaks in service. Techost have agreed to migrate me to a new server.

I wonder if MySpace users will do the same. There are other sites which produce far more useable web pages.

For such a popular service it seems odd that there was not more redundancy built in.

Over the weekend there has been some discussion on this blog about a post I made last week, regarding a conversation overheard between George Bush and Tony Blair at the G8. It is frightening how little Bush seems to understand the Middle East conflict, based on this remark.

Take a stroll over to Juan Cole’s excellent “Informed Comment” blog, and you will see he makes the same point, but devotes rather more than a paragraph to it. Cole’s summary:

It is a little window into the superficial, one-sided mind of the man, who has for six years been way out of his depth.

I come away from it shaken and trembling.

And that is the problem. Bush seems like a nice enough guy (if you can excuse all the killing he has authorised!) but he clearly does not have a clue. Look at the video of his briefing prior to hurricane Katrina – does he ask any questions? No. Does he make any comment that indicates he has a plan beyond trusting in his civil service? No.

Likewise this conversation with Blair. He actually seems to think that Hezbollah can be forced to stop their sh** by order of Damascus, and that this will bring the Middle East crisis to an end. Notice that Tony Blair just goes kind of quiet as Bush says this. Obviously he does not want to contradict the man – but my reading of the body language is that he does not agree.

Incidentally, I think there are some errors in Cole’s transcription. This below is the BBC transcription:

Bush: Yo, Blair. How are you doing?
Blair: I’m just…

Bush: You’re leaving?

Blair: No, no, no not yet. On this trade thingy…[indistinct]

Bush: Yeah, I told that to the man.

Blair: Are you planning to say that here or not?

Bush: If you want me to.

Blair: Well, it’s just that if the discussion arises…

Bush: I just want some movement.

Blair: Yeah.

Bush: Yesterday we didn’t see much movement..

Blair: No, no, it may be that it’s not, it may be that it’s impossible.

Bush: I am prepared to say it.

Blair: But it’s just I think that we need to be an opposition…

Bush: Who is introducing the trade?

Blair: Angela [Merkel, the German Chancellor]

Bush: Tell her to call ‘em.

Blair: Yes

Bush: Tell her to put him on, them on the spot. Thanks for the sweater – it’s awfully thoughtful of you.

Blair: It’s a pleasure.

Bush: I know you picked it out yourself.

Blair: Oh absolutely – in fact I knitted it!!!

(laughter)

Bush: What about Kofi? [Annan] – he seems all right. I don’t like his ceasefire plan. His attitude is basically ceasefire and everything sorts out…. But I think…

Blair: Yeah, no I think the [indistinct] is really difficult. We can’t stop this unless you get this international business agreed.

Bush: Yeah.

Blair: I don’t know what you guys have talked about, but as I say I am perfectly happy to try and see what the lie of the land is, but you need that done quickly because otherwise it will spiral.

Bush: I think Condi [US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice] is going to go pretty soon.

Blair: But that’s, that’s, that’s all that matters. But if you… you see it will take some time to get that together.

Bush: Yeah, yeah.

Blair: But at least it gives people…

Bush: It’s a process, I agree. I told her your offer too [the BBC transcription has this as "to ...", but I think they are in error here. I think Bush is just saying "I told her your offer as well"]

Blair: Well… it’s only if I mean… you know. If she’s got a…, or if she needs the ground prepared as it were… Because obviously if she goes out she’s got to succeed, if it were, whereas I can go out and just talk.

Bush: You see the irony is what they need to do is get Syria, to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it’s all over…

Blair: [indistinct]

Bush: [indistinct]

Blair: Dunno… Syria….

Bush: Why?

Blair: Because I think this is all part of the same thing…

Bush: (with mouth full of bread) Yeah

Blair: Look – what does he think? He thinks if Lebanon turns out fine. If you get a solution in Israel and Palestine, Iraq goes in the right way

Bush: Yeah, yeah, he is struggling.

Blair: He’s had it. And that’s what the whole thing is about. It’s the same with Iraq.

Bush: I felt like telling Kofi to call, to get on the phone to Assad and make something happen.

Blair: Yeah

Bush: [indistinct]

Blair: [indistinct]

Bush: We are not blaming the Lebanese government.

Blair: Is this…? [Blair taps the microphone in front of him and the sound is cut.]

You can listen to the interview yourself if you download the BBC Newsnight podcast or visit the BBC Newsnight website

So fuel tax is too high? We should campaign to see big reductions in this tax? How long do we think fuel will last us anyway?

At the time of the last fuel crisis, someone suggested to me that we could run vehicles on a limitless supply of ethanol, and we need not worry about the fact that fuel production is already almost at its peak, and ready to start tailing off.

This kind of argument fails to consider just how much fuel we are all using. Here is an excerpt to my answer to that writer.

again, Brazil has been doing this [producing ethanol for motor vehicles] quite successfully for many years

Successful in what sense? despite the ideal conditions for ethanol production, government subsidy is still required to make ethanol production cost effective.

Because ethanol has a calorific value about half that of petrol, it is necessary to mix the ethanol with petrol in order to avoid the need for huge fuel tanks. Currently I understand that Brazilian fuel is between 22% and 24% ethanol.

Various vehicles do run on pure ethanol, but these are generally vehicles such as city taxis, where the shorter range is less of a problem.

In Brazil the sugar cane region is known as the Zona da Mata – a huge swathe of land that has all but replaced the Mata Atlantica tropical forest. To grow sufficient sugar to run all those vehicles, the forest has been destroyed.

In any case, ethanol in Brazil is produced from sugar cane. I believe that Eucalyptus is often used as biomass. To give some idea of the amount of sugar cane alone that is required to produce ethanol, consider these figures:

It is estimated that the net energy yield of ethanol produced from sugar is 30GJ/ha each year. Diesel fuel has a calorific value of about 35 KJ/L at 15 degrees Celsius, so assuming this is 10% more than petrol, we find that the net yield of energy is equivalent to approximately 1000 litres of petrol equivalent per hectare per year.

Now I know that the average petrol station distributes about 2 million litres of fuel per year (see this site ), so we require about 2,000 hectares of land (capable of growing sugar) for each petrol station. (I am not sure what total UK usage of petrol/diesel is, but would be interested in using those figures in this context, if anyone has them).

At current levels of usage (which are growing all the time), we don’t have a hope of servicing our needs through ethanol production.

Brazil manages it because they have a climate in which they can grow sugar cane, and huge tracts of forest that they can cut down to place the sugar plantations. Even so, they still rely heavily on petrochemicals to balance their fuel budget.

In theory alcohols are sustainable fuels, but in practice we do not have the land area to grow sufficient quantities for our needs.

What can we do? Are we all doomed? or is there really a sensible way to reduce fuel consumption in a way that will not destroy our economies?

The right to roam in the countryside has at last bee established in law in the UK, and thus far there have been none of the devastating invasions of ramblers, forming ant-like colonies across farmed land, stripping crops and causing mayhem. It all seems quite successful.

It seems to me that the right was a long time in coming, and owes much to an antiquated view of land as property, which owes more to the generation of Locke, and those who stole the common land from the commoners.

That is to say: we should not need a “right to roam”, if we had a more sensible view of the land on which we live as inherently common.

My view is that people should not be able to own land as property, but rather they should be allowed to own a package of rights on the land. One could deal with the right to roam by decoupling the right to sole access from the other rights, except in certain circumstances (e.g., around dwellings).

This would allow a much more sensible aproach to walkers on land. As in Scotland, people would not be guilty of an offence unless they actually caused damage on land over which they roamed. Why is it that England and Wales are so backward on this topic? European laws on the subject tend to be much more liberal (the advantages of having revolutions maybe?)

At first sight this may seem like a no-brainer: that killing for vengeance is nowhere near as immoral as killing for some other reason.

However, after a particularly nasty murder in the UK, I noticed one person, Blewyn, wrote to say that to kill the murderer would make us as bad as the original murderer.

Now I take it that Blewyn is alluding to some deeper understanding of human motive and the human condition, which we really ought to try and understand before firing off the first ad hominem that comes to mind.

Why should we consider the issue? Well it is clear to me that Blewyn is an intelligent person, who thinks differently from others on this issue. By granting that he is clearly intelligent, we must suppose there is intelligent reason for his comparison above, and until we understand that reasoning, we cannot hope to accept or refute it.

That alone is an important principle of critical thinking that would do so much to promote understanding in our society.

Now for this discussion, I intend to use a hypothetical example so as not to distress anyone familiar with real cases who may happen to find this message.

So let us suppose that someone, Cornelius, murders another person – Aurelia. Let us suppose that Aurelia is an accomplished archer, and that Cornelius hates archers.

Now to get inside the head of Cornelius is difficult, and not wholly desireable, but let us suppose that his hatred for archers has consumed him to some extent. It stems perhaps from a childhood event where his father stood him by a tree and shot an apple from above his head; but over the years his nightmares of that event turned to hatred, and his hatred was repressed until eventually he came to the point where he could not look at an archer without feeling a mix of hatred and a longing for his father (who left him alone shortly after the apple event).

Thus whenever Cornelius sees Aurelia he is consumed by normally repressed emotions, and on one occasion, given the opportunity, he lapses into a kind of insanity and seeks to gratify his repressed emotions in the murder of Aurelia.

Now anyone who knows all this about Cornelius will perhaps see that there is a curious tension here between his neurosis, in which he is a victim of his own life circumstances, the product of his up bringing, and between his own personal responsibility and choice, which he exercised many times – both in failing to address his base instincts, and also when he deliberately chose to gratify his deepest repressed desires.

Note this carefully: we do not hold Cornelius to be free from personal responsibility simply because of his upbringing and neurosis. He is very much at fault in the matter of Aurelia’s death.

But now, what is our response to Cornelius? Most people who knew and loved Aurelia, and many more besides will instinctively wish for the death of Cornelius. Deep down we all have a desire for retribution when wrong is done against us, or those we love. Such emotions are not a neurosis, but they are an emotional, not a rational response.

If we give in to those emotions and deliberately allow the torture or killing of Cornelius, then we have made exactly the same choice that Cornelius made. We have chosen to kill (or torture) simply to sate our base instincts.

We should not hold Cornelius responsible fo his neurosis – that is beyond his control, but we rightly hold him responsible for his choices, and thus his actions. But if we make the same choices as he did, then we really are no better than he is. If we were in his shoes, we must conclude we would have done what he did.

Thus when we punish Cornelius, we must hold to some higher ideal for the punishment than simply that it sates our inate desire for vengeance. Punishment may hold an element of retribution, but a restrained retribution that allows for some measure of healing.

Punishment should be a deterrant, but also with the hope that the offender may be rehabilitated too.

This is what I understand Blewyn to be saying when he says that killing the offender makes us as bad as he, and this is why we need a rather more rational debate on the whole concept of punishment than can be found following straight after various deradful tragedies.

Note that killing Cornelius will not bring Aurelia back, nor heal the hurt that her beloved Marcus feels deep inside.

Someone might say:

Actually it solves the danger of the perpetrator doing it again, and it solves the financial burden of keeping them in jail. And it sends the message that if you cross the line, you go down, permanently.

The message seems to be lost, if the U.S. is anything to go by. The issue of cost should not be a factor – what price our humanity? As for the danger of the perpetrator doing it again? Life sentences can achieve this.

It seems that you can get any kind of emergency help these days, but this one – parked outside our office yesterday, was a new one on me. The caption reads “Grey Matters Ltd. 24 Hour Emergency Philosopher. Don’t even think about it, call us instead!”

And then underneath:

• Same day service within the M25
• All though considered – from inkling to eureka!
• 10% discount when you mention Tarski’s argument that the model-theoretic characterization of logical consequence is more basic than its characterization in terms of a deductive system

It is not clear who in our office had called out this service.

“Hear this, you old men, and give ear, all you inhabitants of the land. Has anything like this happened in your days, or even in the days of your fathers?”

–Joel 1:2

What is Joel saying now? He is referring to a plague of locusts that had overrun crops with devastating consequences. Look at verse four – there were four waves of locusts, and by the time all four waves had passed there was absolutely nothing left. The locusts had eaten everything.

Joel saw with a clarity that which had been lost to his contemporaries. He could say without a doubt that this destruction was brought about by the judgement of God. The iniquity of God’s people had reached such mammoth proportions that God had poured out his wrath in a manner that had never been seen before.

Joel knew that God was a God of Justice who could not turn a blind eye to the sin of a debased generation, and while he was long suffering, and for many years allowed this situation to continue, there came a point when God shouted from on high *enough is enough* and hurled the plague of locusts upon his people.

Yet God is also a God of love and great mercy. In the midst of the chaos he raised up Joel to declare to the people the means by which they could turn away God’s anger; through repentance.

The question we need to ask ourselves is this: Is God happy with the church today? Is God pleased with what we are doing? Or is he angry?

I believe that God looks at today’s church with long-suffering patience and gracious mercy. He looks upon an adulterated gospel and ministers many of whom have been caught in sinful acts, even adultery and worse. He looks at Christians (including our leaders) who do not pray.

A survey of ministers in an evangelical Bible College revealed that 95 percent of them admitted to having no devotional life.

Another survey of all Christians revealed that a similar proportion of these considered themselves to be “babes in Christ”.

Imagine if your country went to war and a survey of soldiers revealed that they were all children, that the Generals wore baby-grow suits.

What a wonderful church we must be to God when he looks at us but never hears from us. He sees us preferring our sins of pride and lust, theft and deceit, materialism and injustice, to our ministries of prayer and worship; truth, justice and mercy.

We love to talk of our beliefs, but what we say in public does not match up with our secret devotional life (and here I am speaking personally too. Oftentimes I have expounded my beliefs happily and been oh so ready to debate and argue my faith, but when all is done and I turn to private devotion to God I have proved myself dry and barren. I have discovered the truth of the saying that “failing here, we fail everywhere.”)

We claim God is all sufficient for us but we still look to our money for our support. We claim God is love and that we love him, but we never talk to this number one love in our lives! We claim that we have a heart for this lost and dying world, and point to our occasional arguments of theology as support, but we never once did spend a night in prayer for these people.

Imagine that someone you claim to love is gravely ill. This person will not last the night without your help. Would you help them? Of course. If it were necessary you would have your blood sucked from your body and pumped into theirs. If you truly loved them you would give them not only your time but your very life energy to assist them.

Why, oh why then do we rest easy in our beds when this world is waltzing its way through the twilight hours on the gem encrusted, oh so sweet road to an eternity of damnation in hell? How can we be dry eyed about just one soul who falls into a lost eternity? Why have we no concern for these people? (or is a thirty second prayer counted as concern now?)

Jesus asked his disciples to wait up with him one night to pray in Gethsemene, but they fell asleep. Our Lord’s most traumatic moments but the disciples preferred their bedside to our master’s side. How sad.

But if we were in Gethsemene, from the evidence of our lives I would say that we would be sleeping too. Will we be roused now? Will we watch and pray with our Lord and Saviour? Or are we too comfortable. To needy of our warm and soft beds?

We are pitifully far from God at this time. God is holding back his anger, but how much longer? How can we forestall God’s anger? I know only one way:

Repentance.

We need to repent of our failings and turn to God with sincerity. We need to do those things we have neglected so long. Don’t look at other Christians to find God’s minimum standard for your life. Turn to God fully and do *everything* within your power to please him, and then maybe we can pray:

Lord, I’ve heard of your fame, and I stand in awe of your deeds. O Lord, renew these deeds in our time, and in your anger, Lord, remember mercy.

In your anger, Lord, remember mercy.