Thursday, January 24, 2013


Part Four of Five

THE ANTI-LIBERAL LIST

Broken Down into Five Parts 

Twenty Statements Each

Another face of liberalism


[When first presented we recommend treating this as a TRUE and FALSE Quiz, then asked for elaboration on any point or points in particular.  Now we’re revealing answers of our own to which you are invited to respond as fully and furiously as you like.   ~ FT]

61. Liberals believe guns, themselves, are evil, and that the criminals who use them to maim and murder are in fact victims of the NRA.

FT: False –– a bit of twisted logic that aids in destroying the credibility of  the conservative movement.

62. Liberals have a deep hatred of anyone that speaks of defending himself by using lethal force against his attackers.

FT: False. I'd never put it that way. However, liberals do have a deep dislike and distrust of allowing individuals to have access to lethal weapons.

63. When liberals talk, they make a lot of noise, but rarely make much sense. 

FT: False –– but partly true. From their point if view liberals make a great deal of sense; from ours they appear to have a penchant for dictating terms.

64. Liberals not-so-secretly worship Karl Marx.

FT: True –– but few of them realize it –– or are willing to acknowledge it when presented with clear proof of the assertion. They simply refuse to own up to it, and vehemently accuse their attackers of malice, stupidity or dishonesty.

65. Liberals don’t want to leave you alone, instead they heckle, badger, question, demand explanations and mercilessly wear you down with "Jesuitical Logic," until finally you get so exhausted from the constant buffeting, you'll agree to anything just to get the bastards to SHUT UP.

FT: True –– to a limited extent. The most visible, vocal and vicious among them behave this way. Anyone who has ever been subjected to "the treatment" knows exactly what we are talking about. Many of these people remain in perpetual attack mode, and thus live on the ragged edge of hysteria all the time –– or so it seems.

66. Liberals are eager to monitor everything you do at all hours of the day and night. The emergence of a totally controlled society where no one could possibly step out of line for even a second without suffering swift and deadly reprisal is their dream.

FT: True, although the majority of "them" may not realize it –– and would never admit , if they did –– that this would be the inevitable outcome if their dreams were fulfilled.

67. Liberals are masters at engendering feelings of guilt, shame and responsibility in those innocent of any wrongdoing, other than the attainment of a reasonable degree of prosperity.

FT: True. Their tactics never worked on me, personally, because I've always been able to see through them, but they certainly have a had woeful effect on the population as a whole.

68. Liberals override logic, reason, and good common sense with feelings of ersatz compassion for  the "victims of society" most of whom tend to be misfits, malcontents, malingerers, and violent criminals. 

FT: True –– at least in part. I many instances the feelings of compassion may be sincere , but those who believe in Purity of Motive among the instigators most certainly qualify as "useful idiots."            

69. Liberals believe that a criminal has the right to be kept safe anywhere, even when he's inside your home holding a weapon on you and your family.

FT: True and false both. Many liberals believe in "measured" retaliative force, and consider it criminal behavior if a victim dares to "overreact" to invasion, assault, the threat of battery or outright mayhem.

70. Liberals would rarely step in and use physical force to the aid a victim of assault and battery, instead they might call 911.

FT: False and true both. Very few of us have the courage –– or the wherewithal –– to intervene physically on behalf of a victim of violent assault.

71. Liberals will use every legal trick in the book to frustrate and stymie your efforts to profit from your investments and your ingenuity. Their primary motive for this is to let you know that it's they –– not you –– who's in control. 

FT: True –– or at least it certainly seems so to those of us who fervently believe in unfettered Capitalism. There are plenty of super-rich liberals, however, whose very existence seems to belie the accusation. 

72. Liberals tend to be crafty, devious, and manipulative. They have no compunctions against using deception to get what they want, because they firmly believe their ends are so worthy they justify whatever means may be necessary to get implemented.

FT: True, but not strictly so. This is probably one of those cases where both sides might be equally guilty of the same sort of behavior.

73. Liberals have evil intentions behind the honeyed words they use telling us their only intent is to benefit all of society.

FT: True and false both. Most liberals are probably quite sincere, and honestly believe their policies are beneficial. With most of their leaders, however, it's an entirely different story. The intent of the authors and prime movers of liberalism has always been to destroy the status quo.

74. Liberals would abridge the Constitution to exclude any mention of God in public spaces. 

FT: True –– or so it certainly seems.

75. Liberals work to turn perfectly satisfactory standard household items like old-fashioned toilets and incandescent light bulbs into into contraband.

FT: True. They will tell you it's for the sake of the environment or to make your life safer and saner, but in truth most of their initiatives are conjured up as a means of eventually seizing and holding absolute power.

76. Liberals continually flood the system with new increasingly intrusive laws and ever-more tightening restrictions that even a lawyer can’t keep up with. The object is to keep everyone confused, off balance –– and increasingly vulnerable –– to public embarrassment, fines and imprisonment for violations of increasingly thorny, convoluted, incomprehensible statutes.

FT: True –– or so it certainly seems. That may not have been the intent, but it certainly has been the result of far too many of the things they have done.

77. Liberals do everything possible to make people forget what freedom truly means, which is why their minions in the Education and Publishing Industries continually indulge in historical revisionism. 

FT: True –– but again not strictly so. From the conservative point of view, however, that appears to be the case more often than not. The difference between what schools teach today as opposed to sixty years ago is acute and profoundly disturbing to those of us who can still remember the past.

78. Liberals attempt to pass laws to force everyone to adopt mass conformity to whatever version of a "New Deal" may be currently in vogue.

FT: True.

79. Liberals expect you never to question their authority.

FT: False. They don't expect it, but they certainly would prefer it. But then, wouldn't we all if given our druthers? 

80. Liberals would like to turn us into a menacing Police State not unlike that of the Third Reich or the Soviet Union where the police are greatly feared and act as a para-military arm of the Central Government and have the power to deprive you of your liberty at will.

FT: False, yet true as well. Few liberals would like that to happen, I suspect, but then few realize that the Totalitarian State would be the inevitable, ineluctable result if their policies are fully implemented.

38 comments:

jez said...

61. guns are, themesleves, dangerous. The NRA comes across as negligent.

62. I'm uncomfortable with some of the near-masturbatory fantasy sequences some conservative bloggers dream up about popping caps in crims' asses etc. Uncomfortable and bored.

63. Making sense is hard, people rarely achieve it.

64. Haven't read him, so don't know. Probably neither did the author of this list.

65. I know this happens a lot (applies to any zealot), but proper discussion is both useful and great fun. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

66. I haven't noticed liberals relishing surveillance. I perceive 3 levels of privicy: public, private and secret, and private is the default.

67. The great liberal reforms of the 19th century were driven by empathy and a new recognition of our interdependence. Some people respond emotionally to that.

68. Compassion and mercy do run counter to common sense, and are logical precepts, not results.

69. Universal access to the law. (The alternative is outrageous, do you want permission to torture intruders? Do you want getting away with murder to be as easy as faking a break-in?)

70. Few would be useful in such an intervention, and many would escalate whatever situation was in progress. Calling 911 is a good first thing to do, not a last resort after vigilantism has failed.

71. False, liberals are motivated by profit just like anyone else.

72. FreeThinke and I have already discussed this at length. He thinks it's fine because both sides do it, I don't.

73. No evidence that liberals are above averagely evil.

74. Maybe -- ignorant foreigner. Why would that be a bad thing?

75. True, although what do you mean by "satisfactory"? FT: what steps lie between getting rid of incandescent bulbs and achieving absolute power?

76. Are the conservatives are less enthusiastic legislators? I do wish laws were as simple as possible, but no simpler. I understand the result of that equation might still be "quite complicated" -- Lawyering might be a genuinely difficult problem requiring experts.

77. Historic revisionism happens anyway, as different ideas gain dominance. In the 18th century we might see things in terms of abstract mathematics, in the 19th we might favour empirical sciences, in the 20th we might abandon reason altogether. Etc.
"What is freedom?" is a genuinely hard question. The conservative insistence that it is simple is itself an example of insidious framing / revisionism.
A comparison of the school curriculum of today with that of 60 years to go would make an interesting piece, FT.

78. Dunno what this means, but I only have the vaguest understanding of the New Deal.

79. False. I love authority being questioned.

80. False.

Silverfiddle said...

#64. This is practically the only thing I give Ducky credit for. He openly worships Marx and is failed ideology (and it is ideology. Marx was a keen social scientist, but he didn't know squat about economics, as his putrid theories reveal.

#65. I object to the use of the word 'logic." Most badgering of this type employs very little logic and instead relies heavily of logical fallacies such as bandwagon, irrelevant conclusion, straw man and false causes.

FreeThinke said...

Good morning!

Thank you, Jez, for being such a good sport. I appreciate your taking the time to respond so fully.

I think this exercise has been useful, if only to help us see that we may not be quite so far apart as previously thought.

I've been pleased at the considerable number of lively responses to this series, but a little disappointed that relatively few fellow bloggers have taken time to respond.

Ducky has disappointed me by reverting to type with sneering condescension, etc., but you Jez have surprised me pleasantly by taking the "assignment" seriously and responding with dignity and restraint.

After years behind the barricades throwing stink bombs and shouting curses at one another, I've completely lost interest in childish "battling."

Too many discussions on the net resemble little more than a series of Stitch and Bitch sessions -- gossipy, petty, self-indulgent and unenlightened.

I have come to believe intellectual and spiritual adversaries need to confront the feelings each has about the other and work towards acceptance of the right for people to hold differing viewpoints and still be regarded with a modicum of respect.

That is why this long list of assertions has been published, and why we're attempting to dissect it.

I know, for instance, that if I were a Negro, a Jew, a refugee from a Communist country, an illegal Hispanic immigrant, a cripple, an African savage, or a Muslim, I would "feel" very differently about the world and my rightful place in it than I do as a white American man of considerable means who has lived well all his life, despite living under the shadow of grave illness, and meeting the challenges of "statistical" poverty for nearly a third of my existence.

Don't you think it's time we broke the deadlock and started to relate to one another as human beings instead of mere representatives of opposing ideologies?

It's not a matter of ACQUIESCENCE, but more one of HEALING through increased APPRECIATION -- not so much of "facts," per se -- but of feelings, prejudices, beliefs, traditions and varying cultural mores.

If we are ever to be saved from the curse of endless enmity, ALL of us need to understand that OUR particular ways are not the ONLY ways that deserve to survive and prosper.

That said, as an unabashed "Tory," I would be much happier if disparate cultural and religious factions could regard each other with curiosity, respect, acceptance, increased understanding and appreciation -- but at a considerable distance from one another. ;-)

As a tourist I am perfectly capable of accepting and mostly enjoying nearly everyone, but as a homeowner I much prefer to choose who might -- or might not -- be welcome to live with me, or to stay as a guest my roof.

Ducky's here said...

Liberals don’t want to leave you alone, instead they heckle, badger, question, demand explanations and mercilessly wear you down with "Jesuitical Logic," until finally you get so exhausted from the constant buffeting, you'll agree to anything just to get the bastards to SHUT UP.

------
"Jesuitical Logic"? What the bleep is that?

Anyway, it's pretty clear why this jerk is troubled by logic.

Ducky's here said...

FT: True –– but again not strictly so. From the conservative point of view, however, that appears to be the case more often than not. The difference between what schools teach today as opposed to sixty years ago is acute and profoundly disturbing to those of us who can still remember the past.
--------

I'm going to say that you have no contact with the contemporary curriculum and have no idea what is taught.

Just another right winger blowing smoke.

Ducky's here said...

Liberals would abridge the Constitution to exclude any mention of God in public spaces.

FT: True –– or so it certainly seems.

-----
Why? There's no mention of it now.

FreeThinke said...

SilverFiddle,

I respectfully suggest you try to rely less on literal interpretations, and learn to appreciate figurative use of the language a little more.

By "Jesuitical logic" --- a term referred to me by FJ, who admittedly is much given to the use of recondite lore, and cryptic expressions, but whose references, if examined with curiosity instead of annoyance, invariably add to our store of knowledge --- I meant the hectoring, badgering cross examination techniques employed by prosecuting attorneys -- or the lecturing condescension of a stern schoolmaster.

In my view discussion of even the most serious issues should not permit itself to resemble mortal combat.

Anyway, that it what I meant.

Jez, if I read him right, thinks people very rarely make any sense whatsoever. I disagree, but in general we certainly do find the achievement of effective communication a tremendous challenge.

Ducky's here said...

Liberals work to turn perfectly satisfactory standard household items like old-fashioned toilets and incandescent light bulbs into into contraband.

FT: True. They will tell you it's for the sake of the environment or to make your life safer and saner, but in truth most of their initiatives are conjured up as a means of eventually seizing and holding absolute power.

------
This one's pretty idiotic.
If you want to take over a resource crisis is a perfect excuse.
Resource conservation promotes wider freedom.

Ducky's here said...

A right winger believes in demonic possession but rejects climate science and gets upset when you point out he is anti-science.

---
Is that how you play the game, FT.

It's not difficult but I don't see the value.

FreeThinke said...

Ducky,

It's really hard to be brought face to face with the way others see you, isn't it?

I find it so, myself, I admit, but -- except for Marxism and all its derivatives which I categorically reject -- at least I try to see the other's point of view without always sneering at it as though it were not worthy of consideration.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Liberals would abridge the Constitution to exclude any mention of God in public spaces.

FT: True –– or so it certainly seems."

True and "seems" are two different things.

First off, here's the 1st Amendment on freedom of religion:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Everyone is free to exercise his or her religion in this country. We even have government ESTABLISHMENT of religion by the fact that "In God We Trust" is on our money; by reciting "One nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in tax-payer supported PUBLIC government-run schools; by the fact that every session of CONGRESS begins with a chaplin's prayer from some religion; we have presidents who swear their oaths of office on religious books; we have presidents who preside over religious breakfasts and a national day of prayer; we have president who invoke the name of God and Jesus all the time.

By committing these various acts, government establishes religion; and in 99.99999% of the time, the Christian religion. But because Christianity is the majority religion in this country you and other Christians don't see how the government is very much involved in establishing and favoring Christianity over all other religions and NO religion.

The whining we constantly hear about this non-issue is from those people who not only don't understand that we already "establish" Christianity in government, but those same people want even more establishment of Christianity, which is the abrogation of Constitutional law.

What people who constantly whine about is that they want to establish prayers being said aloud and in every building, private AND PUBLIC so that they can be seen as God-fearing, red-blooded Americans.

The Christian Jesus in the NT, Luke 18: 9-14,warned against that, but a lot of Christian Americans ignore it and have a burning need to be self-aggrandizing Pharisees.

"...it certainly seems like it?"

Only to you and other Christians who want to establish their religion as the state religion.

The rest of us don't.



Silverfiddle said...

I kind of see Shaw's point, but if government "establishes" Christianity as a religion, it does so informally, if one understands what establishment really means.

I'm not so concerned with a government official invoking his deity as I am suspicious of it. I would rather politicians leave God to the church, and go no further in invoking The Great Creator than the founders did. Though many were Christians, they set as the philosophical underpinnings of our natural rights, The Great Clockmaker, that even a 1950's agnostic Einstein could pay tribute to. When public official begin straying from that in their official, public pronouncement, they are on thin ice.

Waylon said...

Teddy Roosevelt: The Rough Riding Bull Moose of liberalism. You're going to get Ducky excited here.

Ducky's here said...

2. The fringe right are hypocrites driven by money


3.The fringe right routinely tears the fabric of reason ... and then gets upset when you laugh at them.


I can see why you enjoy this, FT. It is kinda fun.

Ducky's here said...

4. The fringe right believes the Tea Party is not a mass political self-lobotomy on a scale that was genuinely shocking to find anywhere outside of "1984"

Shaw Kenawe said...

What I failed to say when I wrote my above-comment is that it harms me not to have all those references to religion and its god.

What is annoying is to constantly have to listen to people who are surrounded by and saturated in religion tell me their right to worship God is being taken away. It isn't and never was.


Thersites said...

What Shaw, et al, are missing is the "why" there are references to G_d/Creator in all those places... Congressional prayers, coins, etc.

There is a saying, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" (roughly translated, "Who will watch the watchers?) The answer to that question is not "the Press" or "the People". The real answer is that they will only be "watched" by "the Big other"... an innocent omniscient Gaze that in a panopticon or "society of control" will "know" that the established "laws" are properly followed or broken. An example... the old "Hayes Code" censors who would do ridiculous things like prevent "underwear" from being publically filmed if it implied that one of the protagonists of a certain sex had seen a member of the opposite sex "naked" (Hitchcock's "Vertigo")... in this case the "camera" is a substitute for this "innocent gaze" that proves that the government censors are on the job enforcing the Hayes Code.

Of course, all this "seems" silly, since no one is watching. But without the Big Other, the lie that the public officials are really public "servants" would be exposed for ALL to see. They are our "masters", not our "servants".

And their "oaths" partially keep them in-check... make them slaves to "appearances"... keep them as "little" cheaters instead of "big" cheaters (see items that decrease dishonesty... honor pledges, moral reminders, supervision...)

-FJ said...

If Shaw wants to "banish" references to an innocent "Big Other" gaze, that is certainly her prerogative to propose. But the question she should ask herself is... does she really want the citizens to act like No One is watching?

-FJ said...

Oh, wait... given the liberal nature of the Press, NO ONE IS watching the Democrats...

If a tree falls in a forest...

Ducky's here said...

5. The fringe right believes that despite the mobility of kapital there is a comparative rather than absolute advantage inherent in free trade.

Shaw Kenawe said...

FJ, did you actually read what I wrote? Or were you too busy sewing your little straw man?

Point us exactly to where I said or implied that I want to "banish" references to an "innocent 'Big Other.'

Or maybe you're just having a bit of fun arguing and playing with yourself?

Thersites said...

Did you read what I wrote, Shaw?

It's NOT about "Christianity" or "religion" at all.

Ducky's here said...

6. The fringe right is concerned with public prayer despite Christ's warning in the Sermon on the Mount.

---
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men."

-FJ said...

1) Liberals foreclose on sinthomes, thereby avoiding the necessity of dealing with real issues.

-FJ said...

2) Liberals are psychotics, conservatives, neurotics.

jez said...

"taking the "assignment" seriously and responding with dignity and restraint."

Well, I treated myself to the occasional outburst. I'm not a monk.
These flippant items invite response in kind from a liberal, and from anti-liberals they invite chuckles. Anything else? Contempt, disdain, disregard? Even split into five parts, the list retains the relentless rhythm of old-school propaganda. I started to wonder whether the original author's intention was not to dehumanize liberals.

"adversaries need to confront the feelings each has about the other and work towards acceptance"

True. I suppose the danger is always present that our polite political disputes could turn sectarian. We feel sophisticated and safe in our parts of the world, but we're not. All it takes is one generation raised on hatred and misconceptions about the "enemy" and it'll all collapse easily enough.

So yes, let us be reconciled to one another. Let us resist these tempting lies. Especially you, FT. We need our elders to have cool heads, we don't need them to be agitators. I sincerely worry about giving so much exposure to this list.

I hope we're not inadvertently lending credence to this dangerous rubbish. I've tried to translate this list, loosely and intermittently, from "flippant" to "earnest." My fear is that the most entrenched anti-liberals won't even register any difference.

Ducky's here said...

Since Farmer brings up the Hayes Code and Vertigo (odd choice).

7. Fringe right wingers are terrified by human sexuality and actively seek to censor and control it.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Homer described Thersites in detail in the Iliad, Book II, even though he plays only a minor role in the story. He is said to be bow-legged and lame, to have shoulders that cave inward, and a head which is covered in tufts of hair and comes to a point. Vulgar, obscene, and somewhat dull-witted."

An apt description of the person who posts here and who harassed me and my blog for months to the point where I was forced to go to comment moderation.

I don't respond to vulgar, obscene and somewhat dull-witted internet trolls.

FreeThinke said...

Ms. Shaw,

Do I take your remarks to mean you don't object in any way to the remaining vestiges of respectful acknowledgement by officialdom that Christianity has played a significant role in our nation's development, but that those who are disturbed by the incursions of increasingly militant atheists on the status quo should just keep quiet and allow "change" to occur without so much as a murmur of debate or protest?

Please don't attempt to characterize me as a Christian zealot who longs to see Puritan-style theocracy reestablished or worse yet -- a return to the days of Mediaeval Roman Catholicism.

All I can say to that is, "Heaven forefend!" ;-)

I should not need to explain it to you, especially, because I think by now you must have a pretty good idea of who I am through the poetry I've shared with you. Evangelicals and fundamentalists consider me a "liberal" Christian -- even a "heretic" and warn me frequently that I am "hellbound," and must repent or earn eternal agony in the afterlife. (:-o

Their admonitions are are meant "lovingly," I know, but I must confess I find it a bit unsettling to be thought of in such a manner.

So, you see, I 'get it' from BOTH directions all the time.

At any rat, right now it's time to broil my pice of sirloin that;s been marinating for the past two days, and enjoy the steamed cabbage I plan to have for tonight's dinner. Hardly a gourmet treat, but perfectly adequate for an old bachelor on a Thursday evening.

I do thank you for participating. Tomorrow will be the last installment, and then we may move on to -- well, we shall have to see because I don't know yet.

It may sound strange, but I am gratified at the responses received. The object was never to "convert" or "convince" or "praise," or "condemn," but simply to elicit as many responses as I could.

I find it all revealing, if not particularly reassuring or instructive.

Matthew Arnold's words keep echoing and reechoing:

" ... And we are here as on a darkling plane
Where ignorant armies clash by night."


Shaw Kenawe said...

"Do I take your remarks to mean you don't object in any way to the remaining vestiges of respectful acknowledgement by officialdom that Christianity has played a significant role in our nation's development, but that those who are disturbed by the incursions of increasingly militant atheists on the status quo should just keep quiet and allow "change" to occur without so much as a murmur of debate or protest?"

Dear Mr. Free Thinke, you characterize atheism as "militant" when it was the early Christians who banished Christians of other denominations from regions of this new country. And it is also true that certain Christian sects denounce other Christians as not "true" Christians. That's rather "militant" n'est pas? Christianity has been exceeding "militant" in it's long and bloody history. People seem to forget that fact. When someone introduces the idea of atheism as a valid alternative to religion, the ones who label it "militant" tend to be the ones who have little faith in their own beliefs.

Why do believers become to insecure when a nonbeliever states with conviction his/her nonbelief?

"Please don't attempt to characterize me as a Christian zealot who longs to see Puritan-style theocracy reestablished or worse yet -- a return to the days of Mediaeval Roman Catholicism."


You and other here have an annoying habit of attributing to me things I don't say or think. Please stop.
It makes you and the others look desperate for the chance to win an argument I didn't make.

As I state above, it harms me not for people to hold their beliefs close to their hearts, so long as they don't try to force their rules and beliefs on me.

I am a nontheist, I have no belief in gods.



Shaw Kenawe said...

"I should not need to explain it to you, especially, because I think by now you must have a pretty good idea of who I am through the poetry I've shared with you."

That is a much more pleasant occupation for us.



"Evangelicals and fundamentalists consider me a "liberal" Christian -- even a "heretic" and warn me frequently that I am "hellbound," and must repent or earn eternal agony in the afterlife." (:-o

Well those sorts DO get a lift from thinking about people not like them suffering eternal damnation.

"So, you see, I 'get it' from BOTH directions all the time."

You do not deserve such a fate.

"At any rate, right now it's time to broil my pice of sirloin that;s been marinating for the past two days, and enjoy the steamed cabbage I plan to have for tonight's dinner. Hardly a gourmet treat, but perfectly adequate for an old bachelor on a Thursday evening."

For me, it's pasta fagioli, made with bacon in a light tomato sauce over ditalini, and a generous sprinkling of Parmigiano. A amusing little chianti will accompany it. ;-)

Buon appetito!

Thersites said...

I don't respond to vulgar, obscene and somewhat dull-witted internet trolls.

No, you only impersonate them and post obscene comments to attribute to them.

Thersites said...

as stated previously, I'm a strict tit-for-tat man.

FreeThinke said...

Now, please "be nice."

I'm in the curious position of liking numerous individuals who seem antagonistic towards one another.

It's been that way way all my life, but I've never learned how to feel comfortable with it.

I have clear memories from early childhood of family members getting "mad" at each other. I loved them all, and could never understand why they'd say horrible, wounding, insulting things they didn't really mean to each other.

I can remember as far back as age three trying to stop them, and they'd always say, "YOU stay out of this, YOU don't know anything; you're just a CHILD."

That always made it feel even worse, of course. I was too young to understand it was really just a silly game they played more out of habit than anything else -- a hangover from childhood, I suppose.

Sometimes I'd corner one of the "antagonists" -- usually an aunt or older cousin -- and plead with her to "be nice" to "so and so."

The response too often was, "If you still want to love HER after what she's said to ME, I won't love YOU anymore."

It was every bit as inane as it sounds, but three-year olds don't understand that. I remember feeling frightened and very sad when they staged one of their quarrels.

I still don't like it, but at least I learned long ago that no one can change anyone else's behavior patterns.

I've come to believe that most of the great troubles in the world come from "messianic" convictions that it's possible -- or even desirable -- to change the world to suit one's personal idealistic vision.

At the risk of sounding trite we have no power to change anyone but ourselves.

It's not up to the world to conform to our needs, but for each of us to make the best of whatever hand of cards" has been dealt us.

Attempts to "convert the heathen" almost invariably end frustration -- or tragedy.

FreeThinke said...

Ms. Shaw,

I envy you your pasta e fagioli. I haven't had a really good homemade version in more years than I care to remember.

Do you use cannellini? My grandpa would made it with ceci sometimes, and it was GORGEOUS. ;-)

Ducky's here said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Silverfiddle said...

Ducky's here said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
January 24, 2013 at 10:11 PM


Censorship? From FreeThinke?

Did Ducky finally get too vulgar and disgusting even for you?

Shaw Kenawe said...

Yes, Mr. Free Thinke, I use cannellini beans and ceci as well. I vary the recipe with the ingredients I have on hand (this time I had some bacon I wanted to use). I like the broth to be thick, so sometimes I puree half a can of canellini or ceci [garbanzo] beans and add it to the broth, which can be chicken or vegetable, depending on what's in my cupboard.

In the old days, my Nonna made this dish on Fridays, when Catholics couldn't eat meat, and it was served with lots of Parmigiano cheese and crusty Italian bread, and, of course, Nonno's homemade vino.