Bookworm on Nov 12 2008 at 8:10 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
It’s a real work day. Posting will resume later. Until then, have at it (nicely, of course)!
Related posts:
Email This Post To A Friend
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Earl on Double paying in Britain for health care
Oldflyer on No matter how you read the Second Amendment, it comes up favoring guns in citizens’ hands
Charles Martel on Fisking three dishonest Democrat senators on the subject of ObamaCare’s birth control mandate
Indigo Red on No matter how you read the Second Amendment, it comes up favoring guns in citizens’ hands
Bookworm on Fisking three dishonest Democrat senators on the subject of ObamaCare’s birth control mandateBookworm on William Shatner on gun controlBookworm on Using the First Amendment to nullify God — Air Force editionBookworm on No matter how you read the Second Amendment, it comes up favoring guns in citizens’ hands
jj on Double paying in Britain for health care
I’m wondering what people think about where Malia and Sasha Obama should go to school.
Politics aside, I would prefer that they go to a private school because it would make the job of the secret service easier. There are sick, crazy people out there and I just don’t want to see anything happen to them.
I like the idea of private schools and have absolutely no problem with them going to any of the private schools in D.C. However, if that happens, I will expect him to support policies that make it easier for all Americans to have that same type of choice.
Deana
And where they’ll go to church…
http://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/11/12/but-what-is-their-position-on-chickens-coming-home-to-roost-also-fundamentalist-mob-leader-bush-didnt-go-to-church/
>>I will expect him to support policies that make it easier for all Americans to have that same type of choice.>>
Hah. Optimist. Ve haf to make sure the kinder are taught what ve _vant_ them to be taught!! _I_ vill teach _my_ kinder…but all dose odders…NO CHOICE FOR THEM_!!
Ah, yes, the Obama church choice. That promises to be fascinating.
You know, Obama himself and many of his loyal followers made such a big deal about what a devout and faithful Christian he is. It will be . . . inconsistent is the word that comes to mind . . . if he and his wife don’t immediately find a church and make show of going to it.
But won’t that decision be fraught with danger, hmmmm? I mean, if he doesn’t choose a church that is overwhelmingly multi-racial, he’ll be in trouble. If he doesn’t choose a church that espouses the ideas he has advocated throughout his campaign, he’ll be in trouble. But the last thing he needs to do is choose a church that is likely to draw media attention.
A decision that promises to be fraught with danger, no doubt.
Deana
More on the elgibility issue. I have no idea which way this thing is going to go, but other than the internet – and very limited sites at that – the issue may as well be non-existent. If it goes away, that’s well and good. But if it doesn’t???
http://www.americasright.com/2008/11/second-eligibility-related-action.html
>>A decision that promises to be fraught with danger, no doubt.>>
My guess? He’ll avoid the issue by attending nationally prominent churches on special occasions and otherwise skip going to church. His churchgoing days are over. They’ve served their purpose.
Hmmm, let’s go down the list:
Unitarian: Almost all white but integrated in spirit. Adores homosexuality, abortion and socialism, but doesn’t believe in Jaysuss. Privately perfect, but publicly a no-go. NIX
Espicopal: Almost exactly the same as above with the added problem that it’s all-white U.S. leadership is at war with Anglicanism’s orthodox black African espicopates. Wouldn’t play well with the race-obsessed MSM. NIX
Catholicism: Rome’s ‘tudes on sodomy, infanticide and theft will not sit well with the First Dude. Lefties especially hate this church because it stands in the way of their orgasms. NIX
Presbytarian: Wishy-washy, but not as much as the Episcos. Tame worship (no need to expose two left feet). Refuses to let practicing homosexuals marry or fornicate, so some backlash from “progressive” elements if he joins. But he’s on record as being against same-sex marriage, so: MAYBE
Lutheran: Too white and now split into warring conservative and liberal factions. Doctrinally too close to Catholicism. NIX
Methodism: Heading down the same road as the Episcopalians. Like the Presbytarians, their conservative wing, helped by African delegates, recently defeated a move to sanction sodomy as a Christian practice within the United States. MAYBE
Baptist (White): Radioactive. Too much negative historical baggage attached to this denomination, not to mention its reactionary stance on letting accidentally born abortions die from exposure. NIX
Baptist (Black): A distinct possibility but too embarrassing for a First Dude whose half-white background has simultaneously robbed him of rhythm and musicality while endowing him with a disdain for non-yuppie co-worshippers. NIX
Congregationalist: Almost as vacuous as the Unitarians, but half-assedly sort of kind of believe in Jesus. A safe haven for a yuppie. MAYBE
Pentacostal: Too much jerking around. Hard to speak in tongues when the most spontaneous thing you’ve ever said is, “Uh, um, er, uh.” Looney Toon theology that believes in literal Incarnation, sin, chastity, obeying the commandments. The First Dude did not come to earth to serve anything but his Destiny. NIX
Islam: Well, technically speaking, the Prophet (PBUH — or is it PTOOEY?) said we are all born Muslim, that it is man’s natural state, and that we can only be apostate. While it would be a brilliant master stroke that would resonate for all of three weeks internationally, he would still be a target (yes, Virginia, members of the Religion of Peace kill one another at the drop of a hat). So: great move abroad, terrible move at home, especially among people with triple-digit IQs and those pesky donation-giving Joos. NIX
Don’t actually care where – or if – the kiddies go to school.
The church thing is more interesting. He already has something of a problem in this regard, and it has nothing to do with multi-racialism, or any of that stuff.
His real problem is rather more fundamental: his daddy was a Muslim. That, ipso facto, makes him a Muslim – as far as Muslims are conerned. (Your daddy was, you are too: period. Like Judaism, your mommy was, so are you: period.) The fact that he has chosen not to be a Muslim, well: that make him what Muhammad, the Qu’ran and Sha’ria law calls an apostate.
Islam is not as tolerant of those who choose to leave as say, Catholicism is.
Regrettably, (again, under Sha’ria law) it is the duty of any good Muslim, when encountering one who is an apostate, to apply the Islamic remedy. There is only one Islamic remedy for apostasy, and it has much to do with swords and necks. (As indeed there is often only one Islamic remedy for any problem – and it’s always the same remedy. These guys weren’t famous for imagination, were they?)
So – the Secret Service is faced with a situation where every good Muslim, from the royal family of Saudi Arabia on down, looks at the President of the United States and immediately starts thinking of the sword that hangs in his closet. Or the Kalashnikov in the trunk of the car.
It’ll be interesting.
Wars are not won by being defensive. Yet conservatives are seldom anything but, because they’ve been trained to mistake defense for offense. When 13 states voted to ban faux marriage in 2004, some proclaimed it a great victory for conservatism. But it only was so if the conservatism you subscribe to merely involves maintenance of a liberal status quo, for it was a successful defensive action, not an offensive one. Who was proposing the societal change to which the vote was a response? The left was. What kind of change was it? One that would move us in the liberal direction.
So it is always. We play defense when, instead of striving to eliminate hate-crime laws, we merely fight proposals to make “transgendered” a protected category; when we accept the Federal Department of Education and simply use it to effect “conservative” education reform (read: No Child Left Behind Act); when we simply try to ensure that the separation of church and state ruling is applied in “conservative” ways; when we combat the tax-and-spend crowd by not taxing but then spending; and when we preach against illegal immigration while accepting a culture-rending legal immigration regime.
In contrast, the left is as steadfastly offensive as it is dreadfully offensive. If its minions’ scheme to legally redefine marriage fails today, they’ll try again tomorrow. If a socialized medicine plan doesn’t pass congressional muster, it will reappear five or ten years hence. If a new tax is too rich for present tastes, they’ll wait for a more gluttonous palate. Or they’ll sneak a different new tax into an innocuous sounding bill or accept a slight increase to an old tax, then another, and another, and another…. They simply have to wait for the political spectrum to shift a bit further left.
This brings me to another important point. We often talk of compromise, but does compromising with those who always advance but never retreat constitute fairness? The left proposes policy, “settles” for a half-measure, and we leave the table thinking it an equitable outcome. The problem is that since virtually all the changes suggested are liberal in nature, constant compromise and granting of concessions guarantees constant movement toward the left. So we see erstwhile secure territory that is now under attack and revel in victory when we repel a few of the enemy’s charges. But we don’t realize that we are defining victory as a reduction in the rate of loss of our heartland, while the enemy defines it as the expansion of its empire. We compromise our way to tyranny.
Link
That’s a pretty good analysis of what is wrong with Republican politics and the general right direction to take it instead.
Heh. Check this out! I had to grab my chair for the second one…slight case of acrophobia…!
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/11/crazy-floor-and-ceiling-murals.html
Y,
I agree with what you say, but the media filters always frame the issues in terms that put the center closer to the left. Since the uncommitted always require compromise, the compromise is always to the left.
How do we change that? Encourage conservative media. But even that doesn’t exist. The closest is FNC, and Murdoch is interested in ROI, not IDEOLOGY. He merely saw an untapped market and moved in.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/
What makes us us? How much do memories weigh? How much does DNA weigh? We’re non-material beings living in a material world.
suek:
Love it! I’m amazed at what muralists can do.
Here’s a nice piece of art I think you’ll really like. My wife forwarded it to me this morning. Sorry for the long URL; I’m still shaky on using the room’s formatting tools:
http://freshpics.blogspot.com/2007/01/amazing-hand-painting-art.html
Charles:
“the Prophet (PBUH — or is it PTOOEY?)” That is what Canadian muslims write: Peace Be Upon Him, Eh?
Oh, and in the wake of its catastrophic drop in profits (http://www.thestar.com/business/article/534273) AP reports that the Seattle-based Starbucks will seek loan guarantees from the federal government in the amount of $6B. Senator Patty Murray (D-Washington) has reportedly said, “As the prime supplier of overpriced but quality coffee to caffeine-addicted American consumers, Starbucks is simply too big and too vital to the economy and to the American sense of well-being to fail.” President-Elect Obama is reportedly open to the concept of a Starbucks bailout.
Well, Zhombre,
you finally got to me.
For a second there — just a second, mind you! — I was convinced that your AP story about Starbucks seeking a bailout was the real thing.
Nice work!
Who was it that said you can’t do satire these days because reality is way to weird to make fun of?
Re: Is BHO a Muslim, I agree with the analysis of Daniel Pipes: reciting the Shahada “in public” (how much more public can you get than blabbing to a NY Times reporter?) confirms to the world that he is a Muslim.
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/137991
Now is being a Muslim in and of itself bad? Not necessarily.
>>Now is being a Muslim in and of itself bad? Not necessarily.>>
That may be so if one is a private individual, but as president of these united states??? Yes. Necessarily.
We are at war with islam. You can say islamic jihadists if you wish, but if you read Daniel Pipes, then you should know that the koran requires jihad. That means that there aren’t any really “moderate” muslims. There are people who call themselves muslim who are not particularly religious – just as there are people who call themselves Christians who don’t put Christianity to practice in their lives. But if they _are_ muslims, they consider us the enemy. We are the “kufir”. It is beyond stupid to elect one of theirs to be the head of us. Now what if he doesn’t really think of himself as muslim? You still have a problem because _they_ think he’s one of them – and will behave accordingly.
And we already know that he thinks of muslims as allies – or at least not enemies.
We can have Israel as our ally, or we can have the muslim countries. We cannot have both. They – the muslims – have made it so. When A-jad makes peace with Israel, peace might be possible. Until then, only if all the Israelis are dead.
“Now what if he doesn’t really think of himself as muslim? You still have a problem because _they_ think he’s one of them – and will behave accordingly.” –SueK
Yes and because (I think) he signaled them that he is a Muslim.
>>Yes and because (I think) he signaled them that he is a Muslim.>>
Whether he intended to or not, don’t you think? Because if you assume that he did not have that intention, they might still assume that under taqiyya, he is just staying under cover while still pursuing common goals. Which, of course, he might be. Who knows?
If he frustrates them, though, it could get nasty. Hell hath no fury… If you are a devotee scorned, it doesn’t much matter what your sex is…the fury can be deep and lasting. And heaven knows, the muslims’ fury is deep and lasting.
I would be very surprised if Obama wasn’t aware that a public profession of the Shahada — even as a paraphrase — would be taken by the vast majority of Muslims as a declaration that he is one of them.
Given that the Qu’ran and the Hadiths sanction taqiyya, I am of the opinion that no Muslim could ever be trusted as a president of the United States.
Add to that Islam’s antipathy toward civil institutions, civil rights, women, homosexuals, other religions and science, and I would say that we would put this nation at great peril if Muslims were ever to constitute a significant minority of our population. Look at the slow descent into barbarism (shari’a “law”) that Europe is now undergoing
Is Obama a Muslim? Who knows? Until there’s proof one way or the other, I’ll just worry about his Marxism, racist buddies and open hatred toward the unborn.
“Whether he intended to or not, don’t you think? ” Yes in either case, the signal was sent.
However, based on his parents and his grandparents, I’d say he was a communist first and a Xn or Muslim only when it served his goals.
E2…
Agreed.
Here’s a goodie….
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29458
Here’s another one to think about. I hadn’t really thought about the misogyny thing. Yeh, there’s a certain amount of condescension given women, but since I don’t particularly admire Hillary, I didn’t think of it as woman bashing. The bit about Palin got me by surprise – but to be honest, I think that was more a leftist-hating Christian thing, but it was manifested by her unwillingness to consider abortion for her Down syndrome son. I don’t know…what do you think? Many more comments than usual on this thread…that says something as well. I’m not sure what, but something.
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/11/12/hopium-smokers-who-hate-women/
“Is Obama a Muslim? Who knows? Until there’s proof one way or the other, I’ll just worry about his Marxism, racist buddies and open hatred toward the unborn.”– Frenchie
Works for me!
Ellie
Ellie2:
“Frenchie,” eh?
LOLOL!
suek:
One of the ironies about Sarah Palin is that she is the quintessential feminist woman who got and has it all:
—A loving husband who is willing to pitch in
—She exercised her sacred right to choose (which nobody is allowed to question, right?)
—She has a career in a place that apparently has no glass ceilings
—She deals with men as an equal and gets as good as she gives
—She defeated the oppressive aristo paradigm that says you are only smart and worthy if you’ve graduated from an upper middle-class Ivy League school
—She has a sense of humor
—She’s nice to look at (is Naomi Wolf the only feminist who gets to look good?)
—She likes men — really likes them
—She plays a musical instrument
The leftists hags who hate her are:
Gimme a J!
Gimme an E!
Gimme an A!
Gimme an L!
Gimme an O!
Gimme an U!
Gimme an S!
Gimme a U! I meant to say.
It’s hard being pre-demential.
How do we change that? Encourage conservative media. But even that doesn’t exist. The closest is FNC, and Murdoch is interested in ROI, not IDEOLOGY. He merely saw an untapped market and moved in.
Ask yourself how Petraeus got the AL Anbar tribes to side with us when everything they knew, grew up with, and saw from us predicated them to support AQ and Arabs over Americans?
The answer is disaggregation. Defeat the enemy and make him your ally and then use those allies to fight the enemies you can’t easily eliminate.
There will always be political differences between coalitions. The same is true of the Left’s coalition as it is of ours in the GOP. Divide and conquer by increasing those perceived differences and hammering them apart will net you former enemies that can be turned into current allies.
Concerning the MSM, specifically, there are many ways to subvert individual reporters or even editors from the MSM. It is easier for Presidents, Governors, and Congresscritters to do so via the stick and carrot approach of exclusives, however, than it is for private citizens. Private citizens, however, can disaggregate advertisers from the newspapers and other MSM venues, something which would be seen as censorship and intimidation if it came from a political figure.
Tiresias (#7)
>> Regrettably, (again, under Sha’ria law) it is the duty of any good Muslim, when encountering one who is an apostate, to apply the Islamic remedy. There is only one Islamic remedy for apostasy, and it has much to do with swords and necks. >>
Tis true, Tiresias, only if the apostate has a spine and any sense of self-worth. There are other alternatives. One is complete self-negation, which involves kneeling with head pressed to ground. It does involve the neck, but only so that the overlord jihadist Muslim may place his foot there, while munching a pomegranate and staring off into the distance, contemplating. It also involves a pesky additional tax for being apostate.
(Footnote: As always, please note I said ‘jihadist Muslim’. Not all Muslims believe in this. Unfortunately those who don’t believe are very very quiet, easily cowed, and have little chance of any influence whatsoever.)
Ymar (#27)
>> Concerning the MSM, specifically, there are many ways to subvert individual reporters or even editors from the MSM. >>
I still want us to throw some money around in coordinated efforts. In this case, I’d love to see about a million of us contribute $25 to a chosen blog, whose sole purpose is to hire private detectives to dig up dirt on certain chosen persons. We’d start with the mainstream media’s reporters and, yes, even editors. In fact, primarily editors.
Once the dirt has been dug, then WE tell THEM, in no uncertain terms, how they will report. I like to call this: Speaking Power To, um, “Truth”
And if some people don’t like it, well, we tell em, “We’re very grateful for your interest in this important issue and we’ll do our best to address it,” and we then stroke our cheek with the forefinger, and then switch to stroke our cheek with the middle finger. Just like Obama with Hillary and McCain.
I know, I know… I enjoy too much fantasies of getting even. Of forcing karma.
Not all Muslims believe in this. Unfortunately those who don’t believe are very very quiet, easily cowed, and have little chance of any influence whatsoever.
Individual Muslims are okay. When the population percentage of Muslims increase, though, you get an interesting intimidation effect on moderate Muslims.
Ever wonder why crime increases when organized crime sets up shop in a neighborhood? They don’t appreciably bring in any new people, you know, so why does the crime skyrocket? Because now the criminals have enough people in the right places to form an organization.
I know, I know… I enjoy too much fantasies of getting even. Of forcing karma.
Be assured that your fantasies are much more acceptable than mine would be.
That’s if you weren’t a Muslim, Mike, but they’ve decided to let you live and turn you into a dhimmi.
If you were a Muslim and left, that’s apostasy, and there’s only the one remedy available – unless you convert back quick. (And can make anyone believe it’s a genuine reconversion.)
What Obama says he is, was, might wish to be, or maybe dreamed about is entirely irrelevant: his father was Muslim. Therefore, as far as Islam is concerned, so is he – period. As a Christian, or whatever that was in Wright’s church, he’s an apostate from Islam.
True believers see that as a problem.
Crap. I forgot the definition of apostate was ABANDONING one’s religion. You’re exactly right, Tiresias. I haven’t been very careful lately.
One of the things I haven’t taken into consideration is that I think you have cultural muslims and religious muslims. Our blog hostess considers herself Jewish, but doesn’t practice Judaism. Oz says she “was” Catholic, but isn’t now. I suspect many fallen away – apostate – Catholics are still culturally Catholic, but are not religious Catholics.
Somehow we have to differentiate, because I suspect the non-religious – the cultural – muslims are the ones who live peaceably among foreigners and are not dangerous to us if they are here. It’s the religious ones – those who believe in the koran literally – who wait for the opportunity to instate islam as the only acceptable religion worldwide. The question is whether they will be able to persuade those who are really cultural muslims to either stay quiet or support them. There will always be a loyalty among the cultural muslims to the religious muslims, and that’s where the danger lies. The challenge I see is how we convince them that it is in their own best interest to _not_ support their religious brethren.
We need arabic speaking/looking – spies, in other words – in every mosque in the country, just to hear what’s being preached. We don’t have nearly enough arabic speaking non-muslims to do the job, and for the most part, we can’t trust those who are arabic born. Maybe some of them who are Christian or Jewish and were run out of their homelands – but would we find enough who would be willing to stick their heads into the lion’s maw even in America?
You have all the Arabic speaking people you will ever need in Iraq, Suek. The 12 year olds and the 15 year olds and the 18 year olds of Iraq can provide us with their vernacular knowledge skills and in return they get to learn the language of business and they get to be paid in US dollars at a wage rate higher than the local economy in Iraq could sustain.
Since Arabs are loyal to tribe, family, and their own nation, intensely loyal tribal members of a tribe allied to Al-Ameriki would be far harder for Leftists here to subvert.
>>intensely loyal tribal members of a tribe allied to Al-Ameriki would be far harder for Leftists here to subvert.>>
I hear you. I’m not sure I’d be that confident that they wouldn’t succumb to the call of the koran. Guess I’ll file that away in the “Mmmmmm-maybe” category!
“Al-Ameriki.”
Me likey!
Hi all –
You may be seeing this story coming out of Oak Park, IL, elsewhere on the web but it is worth reading.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-13-nov13,0,2881384.column
This, following so closely on the report about that teacher in NC who belittled her students for supporting Obama, is not doing anything to promote my confidence in the people who just voted for Obama.
And please note:
I know this does not represent all Obama supporters.
I know that this is “just” a story about young kids and not necessarily the adults.
But where are these kids coming up with ideas about killing? about crucifying someone? about burning people?
Why are these things coming out of the mouths of American kids??
I need a drink.
Deana
“Why are these things coming out of the mouths of American kids??”- Deana
“Lord of the Flies” comes to mind.
http://lileks.com/screed/?p=38
THat is the perfect example of the marxist phrase that capitalists will sell marxists the rope that will be used to hang the capitalists with.
Courtesy of guy at Neo-Neocon.
http: slash slash neoneocon dot com/2008/11/13/it-had-to-happen/#comment-92454
But where are these kids coming up with ideas about killing? about crucifying someone? about burning people?
People shouldn’t talk about killing, burning, and crucifying little courageous and truth seeking girls like Catherine Vogt around people like me. If I lose control of my inner demons, my capacity for violence far exceeds the total population of that school of hers combined, even if you include the teachers as well.
“I couldn’t show people really what it was for. I really kind of wanted to laugh because they had no idea what I was doing,” she said.
People who are in control of their situation, who aren’t victims, who aren’t in the grips of mad rage or strong emotion but doing what their free will decides is right, aren’t easily intimidated by what they can obviously see are nothing but tools and experimental guinea pigs. Tools may be a danger to you but you should never fear them for they have no will of their own. So long as the proper precautions are taken, you will get things done.
Which is why people like me can detect fakes because the fakes go on about killing, burning, and crucifying people and they have no idea of the actuality or of the kind of person they may have directed that comment towards.
Don’t try social intimidation on killers. You don’t want me to bring that youtube video of Rodriguez back here, do ya? But still, kids would learn something or two from those instruction tapes.
You can’t wear a McCain shirt one day and an Obama shirt the next day.
I’m pretty sure I can break someone’s left leg one day and then break their right leg the second day. Pretty sure, but that may bear testing out.
Don’t ever feel as if you must conform, Catherine. Being on the outside isn’t so bad. Trust me.
It’s not too bad when you are outnumbered, so long as you are always thinking up ways to kill everybody in the room with you. That’s a rule for gentlemen but it also applies to women as well in our equal opportunity and non-sexist era.
P.S.
The good thing about having learned about human nature, human sociology, human pack behavior, human pain thresholds, and various other psychological conditioning traits is that there are no double standards, for anyone. Not even for children, not if they will eventually be treated as adults. It is why I favor teaching children, as young as 6, the proper use of firearms and other weapons (tools) along with tricks to resist psychological intimidation and manipulation (propaganda and psychological warfare).
Those things will serve you well if you ever decide you want to be a contributing member of society. And if you don’t, if you choose to become a serial killer or criminal, well it would still benefit you to know that the great majority of your classmates were introduced to the use of violence, actual violence, the same as you were.
>>“Lord of the Flies” comes to mind.>>
Also..”The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world” It seems to me that in this day and age, there aren’t enough hands “rocking the cradle”. The kids are indeed raising themselves, which makes the “Lord of the Flies” comparison very valid. Children come into the world as blank slates. We civilize and indoctrinate them according to the society we expect them to act in as adults. If we just leave them on their own, caring for their physical needs but not their moral and cultural guidance then the ultimate outcome is going to be that of nature – to the victor belong the spoils…might makes right. All that sort of thing. Descent into chaos.
Charles…
>>Me likey!>>
If that’s a new term to you, there are some milblogs you need to get familiar with! I suspect you’d find them worthwhile…
Start here:
http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/
It’s already starting…
Bad News:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/11/proposed_fcc_rule_a_disguised.html
Check this out.
Link
Dr. Helen does a nice number on propaganda, indoctrination of children, and conservative culture. Highly recommended for those who want a basic template from which to calculate tactic and strategic paths to victory in an Obamanation.
SueK (#41)
>> Children come into the world as blank slates. We civilize and indoctrinate them according to the society we expect them to act in as adults. >>
SueK, I agree that children can be molded a very large amount by their environment, hopefully mostly by caring and determined parents.
I was wondering though if you agreed that the infants aren’t *completely* blank slates to be written on? I’ve heard anecdotally that infants can be born so different in their natures that a mother can tell the difference in their behavior from practically day one. Some seem naturally aggressive, some naturally passive or shy or even shrinking. And some are born, it seems, utterly psychopathic, with zero capacity for empathy. Unless you believe that we’re all born psychopathic, and empathy is completely learned…
But we can *all* be trained to stand up for ourselves, to grow a spine and a will and to carry ourselves with honor and self-integrity. We can be trained to leave ourselves open to the experience of joy, or to view the world with bitterness and envy.
It Takes The Parents to Raise A Child… It Takes A Village To Raise An Idiot.