Bill's Notes

[Industrialblog, March 2, 2007] 0 Trackbacks
Banning Legos
This story has been making the rounds of the right-o-sphere as an example of psycho-leftist indoctrination. And that's largely true.

But the story also illustrates how someone can identify a real problem and then graft onto it an unreal, politicized, insane solution.

The problem was this: 25 kids aged 5 to 9 were in an afterschool daycare program in a church basement. About eight kids started building a "Legotown" using Legos supplied by the program. As happens with kids, they started to create a little society — and divided up the pieces, which they "owned," began bartering for "cool pieces" of Legos, excluding some other kids, and occasionally, being bratty.

Now, if this happened back when I was a boy, the teachers would have intervened at this point — we would have been told that the Daycare program owned all the pieces, thus we should share, include the other kids and otherwise play nice. Otherwise, the Legos would have been taken away. That's it.

But we now live in an insane world, and the teachers here did nothing. Instead, they observed the kids almost as though the teachers were anthropologists. They did not see this as an opportunity to teach the kids to be good citizens, but rather an opportunity to teach the kids about the evils of private ownership and the virtues of collectivism.

Poor kids.

Anyway, the teachers in this case did nothing. They observed the kids, wrote down their conversations, conversed, met, and wondered, "What shall we do?"

Then fate intervened. Legotown was destroyed by accident. Other kids from a different program in the church basement were playing and scattered the pieces.

And at the point, the teachers took away the Legos and demanded the students ... well, go read it. it's a mixture of obvious common sense with total lunacy.

***********

Now, the point the staff (and now the indoctrinated kids) were missing is this: Legotown was NEVER about private property. Private property would be the lesson if the kids' bought Legos with their own money (let's say it's earned somehow through the kids' own efforts) and used them in Legotown. Or if the kids brought their own Legos from home and then wouldn't let the others' play with them. At which point, the teacher would tell the bratty kids to keep their toys at home if they don't want to share.

What we had here, which would be obvious to anyone over 60, is that the kids were declaring ownership over the public commons. And in public spaces and with public stuff, we share. It's not a lesson in communism; it's a lesson in citizenship.

AAARGGHH! WHY DO I EVEN HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS STUFF?

[Shakes head, walks away].

[Industrialblog, March 1, 2007] 0 Trackbacks
Goodbye to all that
Dear February 2007:

You were an annoying, irritating, vexatious month and thus seemed far longer than your 28 days. While you started out promising with the groundhog and all, you soon deteriorated in violent ice storms, freezing weather, bad luck for many people, and over-all pain-in-the-assness. Thank God you are forever completed. May we never see your likes again. Good riddance.

Sincerely,

IndustrialBlog

PS: Huzzah for March!
Scriptural reading
This Scripture is one I turn to in my darkest moments: It's from the first chapter of Paul's Letter to the Ephesians. It is one of the "deliverance" scripture passages, used by Christians to stand firm when under spiritual attack. It describes our spiritual position in Christ, and is used as a prayer for protection.

In the Philippines and Gabon, I experienced spiritual attacks -- real, wake-up-in-the-middle-of-the-night stuff in a room that feels haunted, and this is the passage that I would read aloud in prayer to "clear the room." The prayer never failed.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fullness of time he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.


God bless you all.
Imposing my own ideological litmus test
Dean has inspired me to impose my own ideological litmus test for commenters to IndustrialBlog:

1. We will not submit to ideological litmus tests.

That is all.

PS: All Cretans are liars.


Excommunicated
Dean's World has pronounced a writ of excommunication.

In this post, Dean Esmay compares Dean's World to National Review and Dean Esmay to Bill Buckley's throwing the anti-semites and McCarthyites out of the conservative movement in the 50s. Then Dean demands all commenters and posters affirm the following precepts or be labelled beyond the pale of respectability, to be cast into the outer darkness beyond Dean's World and beyond decent discourse, where there is no doubt wailing and gnashing of teeth:


1) Islam does not represent the forces of Satan or the Anti-Christ bent on destruction of the Christian world.

2) There is no 1,400 year old "war with the West/Christianity" being waged by Muslims or anyone else.

3) Islam as a religion is no more inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most religions.

4) Medieval, anachronistic, obscure terms like "dhimmitude" or "taqiyya" are suitable for polite intellectual discussion. They are not and never will be appropriate to slap in the face of everyday Muslims or their friends.

5) Muslims have no more need to prove that they can be good Americans, loyal citizens, decent people, or enemies of terrorism than anyone else does.


This raises three questions:

1. Are any/all of the above statements true?
2. Are any/all of the above statements so self-evidently true that all reasonable people will hold them?
3. Is questioning or holding differing opinions on any of the above statements analogous to being an anti-semite or McCarthyite?

I think the answer to first question is arguable, and the answer's self-evidently "no" to the latter two questions.

I used to comment a lot on Dean's World, back in the day. Then Dean's take on several issues got me wondering about the guy. I was far from alone on this one. Still, I liked Dean Esmay and used to drop by and put in a humorous comment from time to time. Of course, Dean's World is Dean's blog, and he can do what he wants. No problem. But I'm not one for swearing doctrinal oaths unless you have a pointy hat and an office in Rome, and were elected by a group of folks in red hats.

I hereby surrender my password and comment account, my keys to the Dean's World Secret Treehouse and Go-Go Club, my membership card (good for discounts at your favorite stores) in the Dean's World "100 Comment" Club, and my Dean's World decoder ring. I promise not to show anyone the secret handshake.

BTW, Dean's wife has welcomed those banned from Dean's World. Cool.

UPDATE: Paul Burgess has a funny take here.
Hats off
My former employer, a Malvern-PA based newsletter company, faced civil prosecution from the State of Missouri. The company was accused of violating various state laws related to its faxing practices, specifically accused of unfair business practices through the sending of unsolicited faxes. The company removed the case to federal court, and a federal judge heard the case in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

The company demonstrated on brief that the faxes weren't unsolicited, but that there was a prior business relationship and that the faxes merely involved order confirmation from telemarketing sales, not order solicitation. And had the documentation to prove it. As such, the company filed a FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Monday, the decision was handed down, happily, in favor of the company.

Congrats. It was a BS claim, and the state should've seen that.
'Eagles don't flock -- you find them one at a time'
An exception to the rule is the Gathering of Eagles on March 17. I plan to attend. If anyone is in the Allentown/Lehighton area or along the Northeast extension and wants to come down with me, I have room in my car. I will be driving down and returning the same day. Probably :)

Well, that's that
Jesus' unresurrected body has been found in a well-marked grave, along with that of his mother Mary and his wife Mary Magdalene, and his children.

An essential of Muslim belief is Jesus was assumed into heaven. If Jesus' body is still here, the Koran has erred. Since Islam insists on the infallibility of the Koran, Islam is false.

An essential to all Christian belief is the bodily resurrection of Christ. Thus, Christianity is false. We do not have a savior, our faith is in vain, and we are still dead in our sins.

Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

**********

Of course, the above is all nonsense. Jesus has been resurrected from the dead.

What is surprising is how many people would want Christianity proven false. For without Christ, we have no judgment. And without judgment, we don't have to worry about going to the smoking section of the afterlife.

What surprises me is how many people would rather have NO chance at eternal life if there's NO chance at eternal damnation, either.

*****

TWS recently said something about my opinions, and I'm not sure it's true. [Perhaps he was exaggerating or kidding; in any case, I'm not complaining, and only mention it to take an opportunity for clarification.]

It concerns folks being damned. I do not necessarily hold that anyone will be damned. I believe morality is not based on God's whim, but on God's law. And God's law is not based on God's autocratic need to control or otherwise irritate us, but on God's deep concern for our well-being and His great love for us. If something is immoral, we should see signs of why in this world.

Most if not all other sins assault the dignity of man and the community, or the respect due God. Or they involve missed opportunities for something greater, both in this world and the next.

Will sin involve an eternal separation from God? I think the answer can be yes, but only if you persist in sin to the end. That is to say, if anyone says, "I believe such and such, and to heck with God if He thinks different," you are in danger of eternal separation. If you say, "I believe this, but I am willing to be corrected if I'm wrong," then you have a better chance of surviving judgment. This is true of everyone.

FWIW. YMMV.
Scientists seek evidence of 'asshole gene'
Here's the story.
Good point on 'crossing boundaries'
One amusing TEC pansexualist argument concerns complaints of "crossing diocesan boundaries." This is when non-American bishops oversee parishes in the United States which can no longer accept TEC's spiritual leadership and teaching, particularly on sexual topics but often more broadly.

The pansexualists cry foul and will often quote the ecumenical councils in the early centuries of the church. Chris Johnson over at Midwest Conservative Journal makes the point obvious to us Catholics:



[This section is a quotation from pan sexualist Rev. Lauren Stanley]: Those actions also are confusing. It has been the recognized tradition throughout Christianity since the 4th century that bishops are limited by their own geographical boundaries. This limit was so important in the early Church that bishops at first the Council of Nicea (325 AD) and then the Council of Constantinople (381 AD) said that "bishops are not to go beyond their diocese to churches lying outside their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; ... and let not bishops go beyond their diocese for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited." That last part, about invitation, is important, because it has been understood since those two Councils that the invitations could come ONLY from the area bishop, and not from any other leaders.



[Chris' response]: Convert to Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy when you say that, stranger....

New rule. If you're a Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christian, I'll listen to that argument. But if you are a member of a PROTESTANT church that has, BY DEFINITION, broken away from the church that called those councils, then you don't get to invoke Nicaea or Constantinople or any other pre-REFORMATION church council or church father. EVER!! A rule which Stanley promptly proceeds to violate.