A phat phuture!

The scrum of the earth

The BBC did a superb interview with Euan Murray - well he is superb in it anyway! - last year about how being a Christian relates to being a British Lion (though in the end he was injured ... his ankle I think).
Annoying I don't know how to display it, but you can find it here.

He is interviewed here very recently about putting Christ before Scotland and 'letting down' his nation and team mates as well as denting his career by not playing on Sundays.

Labouring for secularism

The story is about how an islamic group [The Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE)] are allegedly infiltrating the Labour party to seek influence, place workers and candidates in the party, so that they can work towards the establishment of an Islamic culture and society in the UK and Europe.

I have no idea whether this can be true or not. It sounds not too improbable to me. If I was a Muslim it is what I would do.

But before we get all jittery about that, lets not miss the potent religious force that is actually in power and is seeking 5 more years. Because the thing that caught my eye was Jim Fitzpatrick's (the Environment Minister) objection to the IFE's power seeking:

“They are completely at odds with Labour’s programme, with our support for secularism.”

So, there you have it, bold and in black and white. Labour's programme is the secularisation of the UK. This isn't news to me, but it took me aback that this would be so brazenly stated by a minister!

More on Vampires

Filling our minds with ..... what exactly?

I have not read all the Vampire stuff by Stephanie Meyer, but I know they are popular (over 17 million books sold worldwide) and one or two in our youth groups have read them (and LOVE them!! Or is that they love Robert Pattinson, I don't know). So I was interested to see this: 

Ask Doug: Twilight – Why Vampires Aren’t Really That Sparkly (Pt. 1)

from Daniel Foucachon on Vimeo.

Truly thought provoking?

God discriminates

In Scripture, judgment means more than 'punishment'. When God judges nations, He punishes His enemies, but that is not all He does. Judgment also means that God comes near to discriminate, to make distinctions. In Scripture, judgment is pictured not only by the image of a wine press, but also by the image of the winnowing fan (Lam 1:15, Matt 3:12, 17). When God judges, He seperates sheep and goats, wheat and tares. The apostle Peter wrote of one particular period of judgment, 'the earth and its works will be discovered' (2 Peter 3:10). Times of judgment reveal the hearts of men and force them to make choices, they are drawn into conflict with those who make different choices. To live in a time of judgment is to live in a time of conflict.  

(The Kingdom and the Power: Rediscovering the Centrality of the Church, Peter J. Leithart p3)

Take your partner by the hand

Happy 60th

Dad, by Susie
[...a couple of hours work amazingly]

Avatar

We must be some of the few people in the world who haven't seen Avatar yet.
This review of it makes me want to see it - but not in the way that James Cameron might like me to.

I know little about Mr Cameron. Wikipedia (mmm?) gives these two interesting snapshots of the preacher of this film (along with The Terminator, Rambo, Aliens, Titanic, True Lies, Spider-Man):

Cameron has been married five times: 

Sharon Williams (1978–1984), 

Gale Anne Hurd (1985–1989), 

Kathryn Bigelow (1989–1991), 

Linda Hamilton (1997–1999, one daughter), 

Suzy Amis (married 2000, one son, two daughters). 

Cameron is an atheist who once described the Lord's Prayer as being like a 'tribal chant'.

Bailing out with pick axes

Notes on Ch 6 - Credit Diverts Production

Government 'encouragement' to business is sometimes as much to be feared as government hostility. This supposed encouragement often takes the form of a direct grant of government credit or a guarentee of private loans.

Now all loans, in the eyes of honest borrowers, must eventually be repaid. All credit is debt.... ...They would seem considerably less inviting if they were habitually referred to by the second name instead of by the first. 

...there is a decisive difference between the loans supplied by private lenders and the loans supplied by a government agency. Each private lender risks his own funds. (A banker, it is true, risks the funds of others that have been entrusted to him; but if money is lost he must either make good out of his own funds or be forced out of business.) When people risk their own funds they are usually careful in their investigations to determine the adequacy of the assets pledged and the business acumen and honesty of the borrower.
If the government operated by the same strict standards, there would be no good argument for its entering the field at all....(so) the whole arguement for its entering the lending business, in fact, is that it will make loans to people who could not get them from private lenders. This is only another way of saying that the government lenders will take risks with other people's money (the taxpayers') that private lenders will not take with their own money (or other people's). 

Sometimes this point is conceded, even gloried in - you know, sometimes government should take the risks that private industry is unwilling to take.  The argument runs: the benefits to the economy through the sucess of those who do pay back their loans are even greater than the losses that occur through the higher than usual level of defaulting that happens. Mmmm.

Remember, we have to look at the whole picture. This might be all lovely for these sucessful famers or fisherman or 'small businesses'. But what about those who lose out through this? These are those people who don't get a farm or a tractor or the premises for a new building or whatever (there are limited resources - real capital - at any given moment). If A is lent the money to buy X then B can't buy it, or he buys it but at an increased cost (because demand has been spiked by all these A's wanting X). Trouble is, B is a guy with a proven track record of serving others well with what they want and A is not!

And what about the other factors that now creep in. Do the bureaucrats adminstering these loans have special friends they are keen to help (personal or political, or both)? Will they accept bribes? And how much are their salaries ... who is paying for the cost of the layer of administration that this 'credit' requires? And how is this fair, that an individual will profit when all his neighbours have born all the risks (as taxpayers)? Shouldn't they benefit from the profits? Taken to it's logical conclusion this should inevitably lead to an increase in the size of the state.

...the net result of government credit (will not be) to increase the amount of wealth produced by the community but to reduce it, because the available real capital (consiting of actual land, buildings, machines, labour etc.) has been placed in the hands of the less efficient borrowers rather than in the hands of the more efficient and trustworthy.

Another aspect of private loans is this, that repayment is expected with interest:

This is a sign that the persons to whom the money has been lent will be expected to produce things for the market that people actually want.

Government loans are more likey to be lent for vaguer purposes, such as 'job creation'. Well, the more inefficient it is, the greater the job creation and the greater success it has been! Oh, wait a minute, that doesn't sound right (wait for ch 7 I think).

The government can give no financial help to business that it does not first or finally take from business. The government's funds all come from taxes. Even the much vaunted 'government credit' rests on the assumption that its loans will ultimately be repaid out of the proceeds of taxes. When the government makes loans or subsidies to business, what it does is to tax sucessful private business in order to support unsuccessful private business.

Remember we have to look at it from the standpoint of the country as a whole.

---

This is a great quote about the general concept of credit:

There is a strange idea abroad, held by all monetary cranks, that credit is something a bank gives to a man. Credit, on the contrary, is something a man already has. He has it, perhaps, because he already has marketable assets of a greater cash value than the loan for which he is asking. Or he has it because his character and past record have earned it. He brings it into the bank with him. That is why the banker makes him a loan. The banker is not giving him something for nothing. ... He is merely exchanging a more liquid form of asset or credit for a less liquid form.

I must remember this next time a credit card company phone me up. I'd love to know what they know about about me that makes them think that I am a good bet to lend money to.

Economics in One Lesson - Henry Hazlitt

Who gets to turn out the lights?

'Authority is not given to you, Steward of Gondor, to order the hour of your death,' answered Gandalf. 'And only the heathen kings, under the domination of the Dark Power, did thus, slaying themselves in pride and despair, murdering their kin to ease their own death.' (p145)

No best before date

The gospel is glad tidings of mercy and grace and that our corrupt nature shall be healed again for Christ's sake and for the merits of his deservings only; yet on condition that we will turn to God, to learn to keep his laws spiritually, that is to say, of love for his sake, and will also suffer the curing of our infirmities. ( Tyndale's Preface to the New Testament p24)

Cry Baby, Lie Baby?

Behavioural experts have found that infants begin to lie from as young as six months. Simple fibs help to train them for more complex deceptions in later life.

Until now, psychologists had thought the developing brains were not capable of the difficult art of lying until four years old.

Following studies of more than 50 children and interviews with parents, Dr Vasudevi Reddy, of the University of Portsmouth's psychology department, says she has identified seven categories of deception used between six months and three-years-old.

Infants quickly learnt that using tactics such as fake crying and pretend laughing could win them attention. By eight months, more difficult deceptions became apparent, such as concealing forbidden activities or trying to distract parents' attention. (see whole article here)

HT: Mike Smith