Vache Folle blogs at St George Blog. His is one of the first blogs I read regularly so many years ago. I don't know his real/birth name, as he writes with a pseudonym, Vache Folle. Do I need to know his name? He's a character from the keyboard, a self-proclaimed libertarian/anarchist. He is an attorney and attends a Dutch Reformed church in the New York area, and writes many opinions on religion and politics, with a bit on legal issues surrounding children. He is originally from the deep South and moved to the New York area many years ago. He uses a pen name out of worries about his job, and blogs out of a sense of belonging to community.
One of the best of flavors that comes from his blog is his skillful ability to write anonymously about anonymous - but real in real life - people. Aside from occasionally naming public figures, his subjects are the people next door, in the carpool, at work and as he comes across them, but without names. Candid talk. His terms for describing people are also colorful. He uses "conspecifics" to describe co-workers or co-carpoolers, and "co-religionists" to identify fellow church goers. He practices laughing at himself, and others, and is constantly engaging in slapstick sociology. He loathes mindless, sheepist conformism, and knows well his place on the Bristol Stool Chart. His anonymity also allows him to post some very personal stuff, but there always seems to be some underlying humor in it.
VF is refreshing to read for me as he is almost his own unique literary genre in and of himself. I know some people have issues with internet anonymity, but I'm a fan of his nonetheless. Maybe almost in spite of the issues. Vache Folle's St George Blog can be found by clicking your mouse, old school or wireless, here on this underlined hyperlink.
Because theology is everybody's task
Showing posts with label Vache Folle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vache Folle. Show all posts
Monday, April 11, 2011
Thursday, February 25, 2010
A Crappy User Agreement
[Disclaimer: Fundamentalists and ultra-conservative Baptist types read at your own risk. This post and its links discuss human functionality using several slangfully descriptive terms considered taboo by many. You have been warned. If you can get past the lingo, it might serve well in understanding how the world works with respect to your personal infirmities.]
Leave it to Vache Folle to opine about usability of public commodes. Although some might consider such a topic to be left to the locker room, the locker room itself is the source here. Since I have considerable professional experience - a twenty year career in the building industry to be exact - with the root causes of VF's dilemma, I will expound upon that experience with authority. Although I gave a content disclaimer at the head of this post, it is nonetheless something that affects each one of us as we try to live life on this planet.
He directs user comments toward the designers of toilets. But these comments will fall upon deaf ears and here's why: You, or any other user, is not part of the equation. The crappiest user agreement of all is the one where the user is not part of the agreement. And that's how quite a bit of our lives are lived in modernity.
You see, architects place potties in their designs based upon which toilet models will fit into a stall size with the required space left over according to the building code. If space is tight, it's almost guaranteed the toilet will be functionally truncated. Also, design parameters in public restroom layouts have everything to do with accessibility and nothing to do with usability. It doesn't matter if somebody in a wheelchair can use the dang thing, just as long as they can wheel into the stall and transfer from the wheelchair to the throne using the grab bars provided.
Builders buy hoppers in bulk and look for the best deal. Nevermind if the can can be used as long as it meets the architect's design, meets code and can save money. It needs to be shipped on time and the construction crew needs ease of installation, and it needs to satisfy the examination of building inspectors. Toilet manufacturers tailor their products to how well they do on the showroom floor of builder's conventions, and to environmental regulations that target water use.
Now for another major concept. The majority of potties are designed, produced, shipped and installed without the user being the direct customer. Everybody in the toilet chain is not a direct end user of the product they handle. Pretty much a private homeowner who needs to replace a toilet is the only direct customer. Maybe somebody who designs and builds their own custom home as well. When is the last time you took your significant other out to look at new home models and were asked, "What kind of toilet to you want?" Or in your office orientation on the first day of a new job?
And last, but not least by any means, is the lack of being able to test drive the product. I can test drive a new car, play with a new computer, order the appetizer sampler plate, try on new clothes. How does one find the toity that's right for them? Vache Folle, the only advice I can give is to say, "jiggle the handle." Other than that, have a crappy day. :(
Leave it to Vache Folle to opine about usability of public commodes. Although some might consider such a topic to be left to the locker room, the locker room itself is the source here. Since I have considerable professional experience - a twenty year career in the building industry to be exact - with the root causes of VF's dilemma, I will expound upon that experience with authority. Although I gave a content disclaimer at the head of this post, it is nonetheless something that affects each one of us as we try to live life on this planet.
He directs user comments toward the designers of toilets. But these comments will fall upon deaf ears and here's why: You, or any other user, is not part of the equation. The crappiest user agreement of all is the one where the user is not part of the agreement. And that's how quite a bit of our lives are lived in modernity.
You see, architects place potties in their designs based upon which toilet models will fit into a stall size with the required space left over according to the building code. If space is tight, it's almost guaranteed the toilet will be functionally truncated. Also, design parameters in public restroom layouts have everything to do with accessibility and nothing to do with usability. It doesn't matter if somebody in a wheelchair can use the dang thing, just as long as they can wheel into the stall and transfer from the wheelchair to the throne using the grab bars provided.
Builders buy hoppers in bulk and look for the best deal. Nevermind if the can can be used as long as it meets the architect's design, meets code and can save money. It needs to be shipped on time and the construction crew needs ease of installation, and it needs to satisfy the examination of building inspectors. Toilet manufacturers tailor their products to how well they do on the showroom floor of builder's conventions, and to environmental regulations that target water use.
Now for another major concept. The majority of potties are designed, produced, shipped and installed without the user being the direct customer. Everybody in the toilet chain is not a direct end user of the product they handle. Pretty much a private homeowner who needs to replace a toilet is the only direct customer. Maybe somebody who designs and builds their own custom home as well. When is the last time you took your significant other out to look at new home models and were asked, "What kind of toilet to you want?" Or in your office orientation on the first day of a new job?
And last, but not least by any means, is the lack of being able to test drive the product. I can test drive a new car, play with a new computer, order the appetizer sampler plate, try on new clothes. How does one find the toity that's right for them? Vache Folle, the only advice I can give is to say, "jiggle the handle." Other than that, have a crappy day. :(
Friday, January 11, 2008
Saddam Hussein Flocked His Christmas Tree
Vache Folle pointed out in the comment section that my last post had a Saddam Hussein label. I'm sure this was a mistake, but I now realize that it applies. I just read an article that traced the roots of the Baath party in Iraq to the Eastern Orthodox church. They celebrate Christmas. So, I'm sure that Saddam flocked his tree.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Independence Day Questions
Vache Folle raises a good 4th of July question about who authorized the Declaration of Independence. His ancestors in Georgia were not part of that, yet it happened. Their consent, he concludes, was therefore engineered for them. A good religious question is whether the American Revolution was righteous and biblical, and should a Christian have supported it. Christians debate among themselves about this. One church I attended held that this was ungodly rebellion against a legitimate civil government - the British Crown - and no Christian should support such activity. Others, like Rushdoony-style reconstructionists, see the early colonies as having established biblical local civil governments, with the actions of Parliament being rebellious against them. The American Revolution, then, to them, wasn't so much a revolution as it was a justified defensive counter-revolution. Parliament and the Crown were the rebellious bodies against legitimate civil governments. In general I tend to hold to the latter.
But as Vache Folle has held regarding the Civil War, I've come to think that there were as many reasons for the revolution as there were people involved. I've read historical accounts that call this war the "pastors' war," as many of the soldiers who fought against the British were Puritan pastors, convinced from a biblical standpoint that such a war was just. A religious decline following the war resulted since there were so many pastors lost in the battles.
Some believe that we should legitimately be under British rule to this day, but such an idea would apply at most to only the original thirteen colonies. California, for example, didn't join the union for some 70 years later. It might have been an independent state, set apart from the British Crown, and some of my ancestors may have settled elsewhere. Many of them wouldn't have met each other, and I wouldn't have been me. Scary thought.
But as Vache Folle has held regarding the Civil War, I've come to think that there were as many reasons for the revolution as there were people involved. I've read historical accounts that call this war the "pastors' war," as many of the soldiers who fought against the British were Puritan pastors, convinced from a biblical standpoint that such a war was just. A religious decline following the war resulted since there were so many pastors lost in the battles.
Some believe that we should legitimately be under British rule to this day, but such an idea would apply at most to only the original thirteen colonies. California, for example, didn't join the union for some 70 years later. It might have been an independent state, set apart from the British Crown, and some of my ancestors may have settled elsewhere. Many of them wouldn't have met each other, and I wouldn't have been me. Scary thought.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Vache Folle Isn't Quite Himself - Neither Am I
Vache Folle readily admits that his name is not really Vache Folle. To quote:
When I started blogging a few years ago, I wrangled over using my real name. Each reason that VF brings up has spun around in my mind. I've even blogged about my blogging anxiety. This Sunday I was talking to my pastor after church, and I told him I was doing a lot of thinking about zoning laws and other state activities that ruin our lives on a day to day basis. He said, "I know. I found your blog." Whew! One anxiety down. Mrs. Scott and I had a good laugh over that one on the way home.
There are many things, I guess, that I'd like to write about that stem from my real experiences in life, but my name being out there prevents me from doing so in a full way. That's really not that bad for me. Maybe my name being attached might help me to gain confidence in my internal believing function (or whatever you call it.) In any case, my blog is my blog. Love it or ostracize, excommunicate or jail me.
Why do I go by the moniker of Vache Folle instead of using my real name? I don’t want my employer to know all my opinions on things. I have a stuffy job and some unorthodox views, and these might not mix all that well. I also want to be able to report on the attitudes and opinions of my coworkers without their knowing that I am doing so. I also want to write about religious issues without my coreligionists’ being able to identify me and brand me a heretic. That’s the extent of it. Not too creepy, is it?
When I started blogging a few years ago, I wrangled over using my real name. Each reason that VF brings up has spun around in my mind. I've even blogged about my blogging anxiety. This Sunday I was talking to my pastor after church, and I told him I was doing a lot of thinking about zoning laws and other state activities that ruin our lives on a day to day basis. He said, "I know. I found your blog." Whew! One anxiety down. Mrs. Scott and I had a good laugh over that one on the way home.
There are many things, I guess, that I'd like to write about that stem from my real experiences in life, but my name being out there prevents me from doing so in a full way. That's really not that bad for me. Maybe my name being attached might help me to gain confidence in my internal believing function (or whatever you call it.) In any case, my blog is my blog. Love it or ostracize, excommunicate or jail me.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
The Elite, The Humble, and Two Types of Government
Two recent posts I made (here and here) regarding authoritarian elites and the governing of others looked at some points Vache Folle made about evil and stupid people. Now, he wrangles with a way to disqualify evil and stupid people from serving in high office (here). People can be combinations of good or evil, and clever or stupid, resulting in four possible combinations. By eliminating those who are both evil and stupid, a quarter of the pool is cut off, so the results will be greatly enhanced.
James Leroy Wilson adds his ideas (here) of why he thinks authoritarian elites still believe in big government, despite the obvious. It's a matter of having the "right people" in control, even if it means risking losing control to your opponents, because they know they'll regain control at some point in the future.
Now the ruling elites believe they are above everybody else because of their ideas. They are arrogant. But humble people who might serve in some type of government have other people believe in them because of the observable deeds and character they have shown over a long period of time. These two types of leaders are quite opposites of each other.
It is interesting that Christian leadership in the bible is defined in terms of qualitative character traits of any prospective leader. Morally corrupt and even morally ordinary people are disqualified. How their lives have been viewed by others, and how they match up against God's standards, are the criteria for leadership. Gene Redlin at Northern Gleaner recently did a series of in-depth posts (here, here, here and here) on leadership qualifications and how to avoid the wrong people. The Biblical form of leadership is very non-authoritarian, as Jesus makes plain in Matthew 20:25-28. But, as Wilson points out, this doesn't stop Christian conservatives from wanting to control others through the civil government.
This brings me to two types of government. One type of government is the type that most of human history is familiar with. This is the type that Jesus rebukes in the above passage, the government of overlording of other people. The other type, which I have written about extensively on this blog, is one which is limited in its scope to the punishment of evildoers for only a limited number of crimes, and in terms of punishments that God has already laid down. The Gentile form of government, which we have adopted in this country, is one where the elites dictate what can go in our toothpaste, whether one can smoke on another's property even with his permission, how parents can discipline their children, and every other aspect of life imaginable. One is a government of freedom, the other of slavery. In communist countries, the only way out from the poverty caused by government overlording is to become a member of the party, and to lord it over others. It is similar in our country.
James Leroy Wilson adds his ideas (here) of why he thinks authoritarian elites still believe in big government, despite the obvious. It's a matter of having the "right people" in control, even if it means risking losing control to your opponents, because they know they'll regain control at some point in the future.
Now the ruling elites believe they are above everybody else because of their ideas. They are arrogant. But humble people who might serve in some type of government have other people believe in them because of the observable deeds and character they have shown over a long period of time. These two types of leaders are quite opposites of each other.
It is interesting that Christian leadership in the bible is defined in terms of qualitative character traits of any prospective leader. Morally corrupt and even morally ordinary people are disqualified. How their lives have been viewed by others, and how they match up against God's standards, are the criteria for leadership. Gene Redlin at Northern Gleaner recently did a series of in-depth posts (here, here, here and here) on leadership qualifications and how to avoid the wrong people. The Biblical form of leadership is very non-authoritarian, as Jesus makes plain in Matthew 20:25-28. But, as Wilson points out, this doesn't stop Christian conservatives from wanting to control others through the civil government.
This brings me to two types of government. One type of government is the type that most of human history is familiar with. This is the type that Jesus rebukes in the above passage, the government of overlording of other people. The other type, which I have written about extensively on this blog, is one which is limited in its scope to the punishment of evildoers for only a limited number of crimes, and in terms of punishments that God has already laid down. The Gentile form of government, which we have adopted in this country, is one where the elites dictate what can go in our toothpaste, whether one can smoke on another's property even with his permission, how parents can discipline their children, and every other aspect of life imaginable. One is a government of freedom, the other of slavery. In communist countries, the only way out from the poverty caused by government overlording is to become a member of the party, and to lord it over others. It is similar in our country.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
The Absolute Necessity of Centralized Government
Two posts ago I quoted Vache Folle's take on authoritarian elitism as proposed by George F. Will. To quote VF again:
First, I agree with the authoritarians that people are evil and stupid; this is self-evident. My life is a testimony, as is the life of everybody around me. If people weren't evil and stupid, they wouldn't need anybody to govern them. Anybody, then, who would think that people are evil and stupid, and in need of governing by others who are not evil and stupid, are evil and stupid for thinking of such a thing, if in fact people aren't evil and stupid. Their evil stupidity proves that people are evil and stupid.
But, like my previous quote of VF, any human governors of evil and stupid people will be evil and stupid themselves. To think themselves as better than evil and stupid people, that is, without being evil and stupid, will only lend themselves to doing things that are far more evil and stupid than the evil and stupid people that they govern, because they would refuse to believe their own actions as evil and stupid. If evil and stupid people are left to govern themselves, they can mostly only affect themselves and those around them. If I back over my neighbor's garbage can on my way to work, then cuss him out because I am wrong and don't want to admit it, nobody in Jackass, South Dakota will be affected. But when people in government are evil and stupid, their actions affect everybody. They are far more damaging to society than common evil and stupid people. If a president signs into law something that allows the government to search everybody at an airport, millions of people's lives are screwed, businesses are destroyed, well, you get the idea.
But allowing evil and stupid people to govern themselves isn't a bed of roses either. Six billion people are bound to have conflicts. Every day. So, if you're honest, you'll admit that they really do need to be governed by somebody else. These governors, then, would have to be in control of everybody else without anybody slipping through the cracks. This government would have to be totalist. And these governors would have to act in tandem so as to not set up different rules in different places, and to make sure rules wouldn't conflict with each other. This government would also have to be centralized for this to occur. But how can the complexity of interaction of all our lives be governed by mere men? These governors would need to know each one of us to know how we best and least interact with others. They would need to know how any law they pass would affect everybody both now and in the entirety of the future before they even passed those laws, and they would have to know how all their laws would interact with each other all through time. They would also have to know everything about every problem before it occurs in order to know how and when to pass all these laws.
In short, governors would have to be all-knowing, all-powerful and everywhere at the same time to make sure laws would work, and also to make sure that their laws would be followed. But, you know something? Only God fits this description. He knew all about the entire future of the world when He wrote His laws, and only He can carry all this out.
In conclusion, evil and stupid people must be governed and that government must be centralized. But the only way this can happen is if God is the governor and His laws are the ones used. A government of men by men's laws is impossible. The bible lays out self-government according to God's law as the way we should live. This is why I'm a Christian Libertarian.
I read Will’s “Statecraft as Soulcraft”, and I resent that I will never get back the hours I spent doing so. The basic premise is that most folks are evil and stupid and must be ruled over strictly by the small minority of worthy elites. These elites should, as part of statecraft, cultivate in their subjects desirable ways of thinking and moral values, the “soulcraft” part. This requires a pretty substantial apparatus for propagandizing and surveillance of the riff raff.
First, I agree with the authoritarians that people are evil and stupid; this is self-evident. My life is a testimony, as is the life of everybody around me. If people weren't evil and stupid, they wouldn't need anybody to govern them. Anybody, then, who would think that people are evil and stupid, and in need of governing by others who are not evil and stupid, are evil and stupid for thinking of such a thing, if in fact people aren't evil and stupid. Their evil stupidity proves that people are evil and stupid.
But, like my previous quote of VF, any human governors of evil and stupid people will be evil and stupid themselves. To think themselves as better than evil and stupid people, that is, without being evil and stupid, will only lend themselves to doing things that are far more evil and stupid than the evil and stupid people that they govern, because they would refuse to believe their own actions as evil and stupid. If evil and stupid people are left to govern themselves, they can mostly only affect themselves and those around them. If I back over my neighbor's garbage can on my way to work, then cuss him out because I am wrong and don't want to admit it, nobody in Jackass, South Dakota will be affected. But when people in government are evil and stupid, their actions affect everybody. They are far more damaging to society than common evil and stupid people. If a president signs into law something that allows the government to search everybody at an airport, millions of people's lives are screwed, businesses are destroyed, well, you get the idea.
But allowing evil and stupid people to govern themselves isn't a bed of roses either. Six billion people are bound to have conflicts. Every day. So, if you're honest, you'll admit that they really do need to be governed by somebody else. These governors, then, would have to be in control of everybody else without anybody slipping through the cracks. This government would have to be totalist. And these governors would have to act in tandem so as to not set up different rules in different places, and to make sure rules wouldn't conflict with each other. This government would also have to be centralized for this to occur. But how can the complexity of interaction of all our lives be governed by mere men? These governors would need to know each one of us to know how we best and least interact with others. They would need to know how any law they pass would affect everybody both now and in the entirety of the future before they even passed those laws, and they would have to know how all their laws would interact with each other all through time. They would also have to know everything about every problem before it occurs in order to know how and when to pass all these laws.
In short, governors would have to be all-knowing, all-powerful and everywhere at the same time to make sure laws would work, and also to make sure that their laws would be followed. But, you know something? Only God fits this description. He knew all about the entire future of the world when He wrote His laws, and only He can carry all this out.
In conclusion, evil and stupid people must be governed and that government must be centralized. But the only way this can happen is if God is the governor and His laws are the ones used. A government of men by men's laws is impossible. The bible lays out self-government according to God's law as the way we should live. This is why I'm a Christian Libertarian.
Centralized Government: A Necessity?
On the heels of my last post about Vache Folle's blog, I'd like to continue the line of thinking and explore the idea of centralized government. Next... on From The Pew.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Authoritarian Wankers
Nevermind hitting the nail on the head, Vache Folle uses a pneumatic hammer in nailing this one. His latest post is about George F. Will, but this quote covers the bases:
I like George F. Will's writing... when he writes about baseball.
The authoritarian elitist position has at its core a paradox. If humans are naturally evil and stupid, then their human rulers will probably be evil and stupid as well. Accordingly, any government constructed by humans will inevitably be the fruit of evildoing and stupidity and not a check thereon.How true this is. Too bad this mindset is alive and well in the church as well.
I like George F. Will's writing... when he writes about baseball.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Blogs I Read Daily
I read quite a number of blogs and other websites regularly. I've found that reading views I've never heard or from people I don't always agree with is good for sharpening my own beliefs. I'd like to share the sites I visit most. For quite a while now, four blogs have been absolute daily readings and those authors' views and comments have helped shape not only my beliefs but my way of thinking, while not necessarily agreeing with them. I am thankful to these four just for being in the blogoshpere. Andrew Sandlin, John Armstrong, James Leroy Wilson and Vache Folle.
Andrew Sandlin (blog, CCL ministry site). He is a church elder/pastor in Santa Cruz, CA, and writes extensively on Christianity's place in culture. I hold many shared views in theology, and have gained much insight into our place in God's kingdom. I sense in him a deep concern for how Christianity works in our world. I've corresponded with him a number of times and have met him personally at one of his conferences. We don't see eye to eye on the role of the US in the war on terror or on certain things regarding George Bush, but I'll take our agreements in theology anyday. He's not afraid to ask tough questions or rock the boat, or criticize views of even his allies.
John Armstrong. He's a former pastor and an itinerant preacher and conference speaker. My church used to have affiliation with him in theological circles. I met Dr. Armstrong almost 10 years ago. After quite some time without hearing about him, I re-discovered him through of all places, Andrew Sandlin's blog. He has a great heart for the unity of the church and has been a great example to follow for how I need my attitude changed toward Christians of other traditions. His love for baseball probably equals my own. I've corresponded with him on occasion.
James Leroy Wilson (Independent Country). James is... I'm not even sure what James does, but he brings a libertarian angle to things that has been for me a constant check to my previously held conservative ideas. James is refreshing because he hasn't become a libertarian broken record, and isn't afraid at all to call other libertarians to the mat on certain issues. He doesn't have a one track mind when it comes to politics, and his wide variety of topics and several other websites makes him constantly interesting. The next time I'm knowingly within a hundred miles of him, I'll try to buy him lunch.
Vache Folle (St George Blog). I don't know his real name, but do I need to? He's a character from the keyboard; a libertarian/anarchist in an (correct me if I'm wrong) at least somewhat Reformed church context, originally from the deep South now living in New York as an attorney. He practices laughing at himself, and others, and is constantly engaging in slapstick sociology. He loathes mindless, sheepist conformism, and knows well his place on the Bristol Stool Chart.
I'll write more about other sites I visit a bit later.
Andrew Sandlin (blog, CCL ministry site). He is a church elder/pastor in Santa Cruz, CA, and writes extensively on Christianity's place in culture. I hold many shared views in theology, and have gained much insight into our place in God's kingdom. I sense in him a deep concern for how Christianity works in our world. I've corresponded with him a number of times and have met him personally at one of his conferences. We don't see eye to eye on the role of the US in the war on terror or on certain things regarding George Bush, but I'll take our agreements in theology anyday. He's not afraid to ask tough questions or rock the boat, or criticize views of even his allies.
John Armstrong. He's a former pastor and an itinerant preacher and conference speaker. My church used to have affiliation with him in theological circles. I met Dr. Armstrong almost 10 years ago. After quite some time without hearing about him, I re-discovered him through of all places, Andrew Sandlin's blog. He has a great heart for the unity of the church and has been a great example to follow for how I need my attitude changed toward Christians of other traditions. His love for baseball probably equals my own. I've corresponded with him on occasion.
James Leroy Wilson (Independent Country). James is... I'm not even sure what James does, but he brings a libertarian angle to things that has been for me a constant check to my previously held conservative ideas. James is refreshing because he hasn't become a libertarian broken record, and isn't afraid at all to call other libertarians to the mat on certain issues. He doesn't have a one track mind when it comes to politics, and his wide variety of topics and several other websites makes him constantly interesting. The next time I'm knowingly within a hundred miles of him, I'll try to buy him lunch.
Vache Folle (St George Blog). I don't know his real name, but do I need to? He's a character from the keyboard; a libertarian/anarchist in an (correct me if I'm wrong) at least somewhat Reformed church context, originally from the deep South now living in New York as an attorney. He practices laughing at himself, and others, and is constantly engaging in slapstick sociology. He loathes mindless, sheepist conformism, and knows well his place on the Bristol Stool Chart.
I'll write more about other sites I visit a bit later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)