There is a piece up at Red State about the vicious liberal attacks on Ben Domenech. It’s predictable, of course, but sad, nonetheless. To see “adults” (perhaps it is wrong to use this word to describe Duncan Black) attack someone w…

Is a talkative child,
Behaves in a dominating manner,
Expresses negative feelings openly,
Is verbally fluent,
Teases other children,
Seeks to be independent and autonomous,
Is self-assertive,
Attempts to transfer blame to others,
Is aggressive (physically or verbally),
High standards of performance for self,
Tends to be judgmental of others,
Can admit to own negative feelings,
Likes to compete,
High intellectual capacity,
Is curious and exploring,
Is self-reliant, confident,
Tries to be the center of attention,
Is resourceful in initiating activities,
Tends to dramatize, exaggerate mishaps,
Is emotionally expressive.

And here is what the study said about nursery school girls who grow up to be CONSERVATIVE:

Indecisive and vacillating,
Is easily victimized by other children,
Is inhibited and constricted,
Keeps thoughts, feelings, to self,
Prefers non-verbal communication,
Is neat and orderly in dress,
Is shy and reserved,
Anxious in unpredictable environment,
tends to yield and give in,
Is obedient and compliant,
immobilized when under stress,
Is fearful and anxious,
Looks to adults for help and direction,
Tends to go to pieces under stress,
Has a readiness to feel guilty,
Likes to be by him/herself, Cries easily.

The “liberal” traits that are perceived as appealing to the researchers I see as: bullying, willfully imposing themselves onto others, disrespectful of others, domineering, careless, cheater, complainer, unjust, self-centered, disruptive, rude, and more than anything: SELFISH loudmouths. Read the list again. Those kids were the jerks. The “conservative” traits that are seen as negative I see as: respectful of others – particularly elders and those in authority, careful, organized, thoughtful of others, obedient, desires to please, desires to do the right thing, does not cheat, reliable and honest, well behaved, does not want to impose on others, sensitive, seeks guidance in order to do the right thing, does not pretend to know more than she does, is not full of herself- sees the world as something other than herself.

I would love to have a conservative child!

Huge holes in the study:

-23 year olds are not politically mature. They know nothing yet of the world. They have not yet truly worked and earned their way. Their politics are largely formed by teachers/professors, media, and cultural influences – all of which are, especially in S.F., liberal. It is a false to conclude in this study that childhood personality can predict adulthood political affiliation because these 23 year olds will not necessarily remain true to their current political leanings. Liberal S.F. certainly influenced these young adults’ politics.

-Many of the study’s perceived “well-balanced” 23 yr old liberals would not be liberal if they grew up in a different cultural environment (anywhere but S.F. – look at European kids – similar cultural influence, similar politics). Those liberals would be conservatives if they were properly introduced to conservative thinking.

-Roughly 100 kids, all from S.F., is NOT a representative sampling.

-Bias of those Berkley grad students who evaluated the young children. Did they know the childrens’ parents? – any bias find its way into unfavorable evaluations of the disliked/liked parents’ children? Or did those (undoubtedly liberal) grad students see behaviors in the children they themselves had and parlayed them into favorable traits? Were these grad students qualified to evaluate child personality traits? They weren’t doctors. They hadn’t raised children. What do they know?? Could it be too that the self-absorbed liberal researchers of this study describe the traits of the young and adult liberal subjects in glowing terms because they themselves share these traits?

Heck, I’m nowhere near Berkeley, and I whine about it all the time…

Here’s my take on it.

“Creationism” and “Evolution” are not mutually exclusive.

Evolution, while reasonable, will always fall under the category of ‘Theory’, simply because of one of the basic tenants of the Scientific Method–ie, something is only ‘proven’ if a human, given the proper tools and test material, can replicate the results accurately as many times as they desire. Some things, like Gravity, are ‘theories’ only because we don’t know HOW they work (we can observe the effects, we know THAT it works, but whether it’s some particle or variant of existing force is uncertain). Some things, like Evolution, might be factually true or possible, yet will ever qualify as ‘theory’ simply because it is impossible for someone to replicate the results (doing so takes several orders of magnitude more time than said person’s lifespan).

In general, Science is concerned with ‘how’ and Religion is concerned with ‘why’. Science doesn’t ask why something happened, it asks how it happened. Religion is usually the reverse, as it’s not so important as to how a creator or figure from the past accomplished a miracle, but for what purpose they did so.

The two, however, do not cancel each other out. It is entirely possible for, say, an Abrahamic religion to state that both coexist perfectly in that their Creator used the methods we have discovered by science as the ‘tools’ by which things were made and that most of the descriptions we have are how, as Lorica states, a person from that era would understand the concept or describe it to another (though I must stop to note, real quick, that the Brontosaurus is a human-conceived Chimera and not an actual dinosaur. There are, however, numerous other large beasts that could qualify).

Also, Science generally has holes simply because whatever is in the ‘hole’ hasn’t been discovered yet. Like the whole ‘missing link’ concept, each time a new thing is discoverd, the holes get smaller, but until everything is explained perfectly, there will always be holes. Religion, again, is the reverse, not caring so much about the ‘holes’ since they are considered unimportant to the basic purpose or concept at the time. One could point out countless ‘holes’ in various religions that will likely never be completely filled, but such is not important to the actual message or purpose behind it anyway.

Whiny kids that DON’T grow up become liberals.

The results of a long-term study of nursery school children in Berkeley, California have recently been released and the findings may surprise you. Researchers Jack and Jeanne Block spent over twenty years studying the personality traits of Berkeley pre…

I’m neither Repub or Dem, Libber or Con. I am a Ramone. Barking Moonbat or Wild-eyed Wingnut equally draw my ire and fire when ever they enter the field of play (though Moonbats are WAY more fun to flay).

And as opposed to the majority of the voices here, I provide a link where anyone can find out all they need about me, and come play in my sandbox if they really want to get the game going.

What makes you say joe lieberman and zell miller are left wing?