New York Times admits that liberals are dodos *UPDATED*

The dodo, as you may recall, is extinct.  I wonder, though, how many people remember why the dodo became extinct.  It was because, lacking any serious natural predators in their homeland of Mauritius, the dodos were a bit too friendly to incoming colonists (and their animals), and simply allowed themselves to be eaten into oblivion:

As with many animals that have evolved in isolation from significant predators, the dodo was entirely fearless of people, and this, in combination with its flightlessness, made it easy prey for humans. However, journals are full of reports regarding the bad taste and tough meat of the dodo, while other local species such as the Red Rail were praised for their taste. However, when humans first arrived on Mauritius, they also brought with them other animals that had not existed on the island before, including dogs, pigs, cats, rats, and Crab-eating Macaques, which plundered the dodo nests, while humans destroyed the forests where the birds made their homes; currently, the impact these animals—especially the pigs and macaques—had on the dodo population is considered to have been more severe than that of hunting. The 2005 expedition’s finds are apparently of animals killed by a flash flood; such mass mortalities would have further jeopardized a species already in danger of becoming extinct.
Dodo skeleton, Natural History Museum (England)

Although there are scattered reports of mass killings of dodos for provisioning of ships, archaeological investigations have hitherto found scant evidence of human predation on these birds. Some bones of at least two dodos were found in caves at Baie du Cap which were used as shelters by fugitive slaves and convicts in the 17th century, but due to their isolation in high, broken terrain, were not easily accessible to dodos naturally.

It turns out that there is very little difference between your modern liberal and the vanished dodo. Liberals are trying to spin this difference this as an attack on conservatives (“conservatives are paranoid loonies”), but we know who’s going to survive at the end of the day:

Researchers have found, for example, that some humans are particularly alert to threats, particularly primed to feel vulnerable and perceive danger. Those people are more likely to be conservatives.

One experiment used electrodes to measure the startle blink reflex, the way we flinch and blink when startled by a possible danger. A flash of noise was unexpectedly broadcast into the research subjects’ earphones, and the response was measured.

The researchers, led by Kevin B. Smith of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, found that those who had a stronger blink reflex at the noise were more likely to take such conservative positions as favoring gun rights, supporting warrantless searches, and opposing foreign aid.

That makes intuitive sense: If you are more acutely sensitive to risks and more fearful of attack, you also may be more aggressive in arming yourself and more wary of foreigners.

In other words, despite the nastiness that crept into that Nicholas Kristoff report (as, for example, the swipe that conservatives favor the ultimate evil of warrantless searches), the fact remains that we are the un-dodos, ready to defend ourselves from predators as necessary.

Kristoff also assures his liberal readers that science shows that conservatives are generally meaner, more abusive people, especially when it comes to their poor children:

This research is tentative and needs to be confirmed, but it fits into a fascinating framework of the role of personality types in politics, explored in a recent book, “Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics,” by two political scientists, Marc J. Hetherington of Vanderbilt University and Jonathan D. Weiler of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. They start by exploring data showing a remarkably strong correlation between state attitudes toward spanking children and voting patterns. Essentially, spanking states go Republican, while those with more timeouts go Democratic.

Professors Hetherington and Weiler contend that the differences stem from profound differences in cognitive styles. Spankers tend to see the world in stark, black-and-white terms, perceive the social order as vulnerable or under attack, tend to make strong distinctions between “us” and “them,” and emphasize order and muscular responses to threats. Parents favoring timeouts feel more comfortable with ambiguities, sense less threat, embrace minority groups — and are less prone to disgust when they see a man eating worms.

We’re brutes, you understand, brutes.  Except that research that Kristoff didn’t mention shows that the more authoritarian parent (who is someone distinct from the abusive parent) is good for children.  Thus, people who impose quick and decisive boundaries on their kids are doing them a favor:

Children who are smacked by parents often turn out more successful than those who have not, research has found.

The study concluded that children who had been physically disciplined when they were young, between the ages of 2 and 6, were performing better as teenagers on almost every measure that was taken into consideration than those who had never been smacked.

It was only in cases where it continued beyond the age of 12 that the children were found to be affected negatively, resulting in a dip on performance indicators.

The results of the US-based study undermines the efforts of various campaigners who have been trying to have physical punishment outlawed in the UK, who have claimed that it causes long-term damage to the children.

Read the rest here.

So, even as Kristoff tries to show that, genetically, conservatives are paranoid and cruel, the facts show that people who have these conservative instincts survive well and raise children who thrive.

UPDATE:  Right Wing News interviewed Thomas Sowell.  You should read the whole thing, but this bit jumped out at me, as part of the dodo syndrome about which liberals are so peculiarly proud:

If terrorists with nuclear weapons don’t focus your mind, nothing will. Yet, not only are we doing nothing, we’re doing elaborate, clever nothing. We’re going to the United Nations, we’re holding conferences. There are resolutions being passed. You know — a lot of busy work — none of which has the slightest chance of deterring Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Oldflyer

    The notion that Conservatives favor warrantless searches is counter-intuitive.   Anyone who postulates this is suspect.  In fact, I suspect that person is deliberately distorting the meaning of Conservative, or is intentionally operating from false polling data.
    I would be preaching to the choir on this site if I pointed out that Conservatives value individual liberty, and abhor excessive government power.  Those Conservatives that I know believe in the rule of law, and warrantless searches violate the basic premise of our laws, i.e., the Bill of Rights amendments to the Constitution.
    It is frustrating that what passes for debate and commentary these days so often degenerates into distortion and false-labeling.

  • Ymarsakar

    Humans naturally are comfortable with the familiar. Staring out at an unknown sky, with unknown moons, in front of a sea of unknown creatures, with foreign tongues and alien visages, while at the same time dealing with a darkness where light cannot pierce, guess what that does to a typical human mind scape.
    If you suddenly woke up in that setting, would you feel comfortable as a fake liberal touring Berkley? Of course not. I think inherently everybody has a sense of that even if they can’t describe it in words.
    Instinctively, evolution has given us some triggers and tools, called instincts and emotions, to help us survive better. This is predicated upon the assumption that those without such instincts and emotions did not survive as well as our own ancestors. All that remains to be known is what those things are and what they were originally intended for. Once you know that, you can more easily relate such things to modern human behavior.
    For example, take Leftist white guilt. Because they are more wealthy than the average, they tend to feel guilty and this leads to them stealing money via extortion and violent threat in order to redistribute somebody else’s money to ease their own personal guilt. But this guilt is only one motivation for human behavior, it does not dictate it. A person that feels guilt may attempt to achieve redemption personally, harming no one and only working with his own personal resources. Another person might feel the same guilt and attempt to kill hate receptacles (honor killings) or buy redemption with money in order to alleviate their guilt. Same emotion, different behavioral patterns.
    Danger isn’t a pre-programmed response. If we have never experienced it, like a person that has never experienced hunger, they won’t be familiar with it and will feel not only threatened by the source of the fear but by anything that reminds them of the existence of the threat. A person unfamiliar with danger, for example, will act as Prof Gates did. Instead of working the problem, they attempt to target the nearest threat and eliminate it with full force like a brute. But because they are unfamiliar with violence and danger, they cannot react proportionately to the threat. They either under react or overreact. But we’re not immune to fear or panic. A dangerous situation not only increases adrenaline and causes emotional over load in a person, but it also attempts to tap into a person’s personal reservoir of knowledge and skills in order to survive. That’s why those familiar with a task are less stressed than those just learning it. The familiar=true. The unfamiliar=unknown dangers. That is what instinct tells us. But that’s the only thing instinct tells us. It does not tell us what to do about it. It does not even tell us what is or is not a real danger.
    Because a person is unfamiliar with danger, not only is he feeling adrenaline and emotional distortion of his judgment, but he also feels stress. When the human mind perceives that its host is incapable of handling, mentally or physically, the external situation, the mind shuts down the body. If that still isn’t enough, because there is a mental pressure on top of the physical pressure, then mental defenses such as projection, regression, denial, displacement, and all the other psychological goodies get engaged.

    Too much stress produces what is known as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: PTSD, a favorite hobby topic of the Left. This isn’t caused by stress, in so much as it is caused by doing something that your mind wasn’t ready to do, but you did it because you didn’t want to die or get hurt. So you have a dichotomy, a conflict, like a person that kills another human even though he was brought up in a culture that enshrined the value of human life: a dichotomy of conflict. Part of your mind is saying you did something wrong, the other half says you did right and you can’t tell which is which. If a person can’t handle stress, then he just shuts down and either forgets (repression) or goes back to an early mental state (regression). It’s when people do something that can keep them alive, but their mental landscape just can’t re-conciliate the ideal with the reality, that things start going wrong.
    When you see a Leftist, what you have is essentially someone so afraid of physical violence and looking straight on at the reality of the world, because their ideals of equality and class warfare dictate that it must be otherwise, that they cannot handle themselves. So they play mind games and redirect their own problems to other people: projection. They deny what is real, displace their fears of a threat to their fears of a domestic associate, and so forth. This is all mental games human beings have evolved to deal with stress temporarily in order to keep the organism functioning long enough for long term survival to be a chance. Now a days, of course, long term survival is attributed more to the security provided by the US military and the stability enshrined in the US Constitution, than anything Democrats can personally do. But humans need to do something. or else what was all their mental defenses for? A person cannot keep in denial forever. Nature didn’t intend such a profligate waste of resources simply to make humans feel better. It was designed for survival, for action, not for Democrats sitting around navel gazing while blaming Sarah Palin and George Bush for life’s woes.

    The leaders of the Left, however, are more like your average megalomaniacal masterminds and puppet masters. They’re evil. They don’t do things just to defend themselves but to hurt others. Even though they have been provided with an alternative option that ensures their own interests are met as well as the interests of the rest of America, they choose to loot and pillage those weaker than themselves. This is called evil, not just somebody choosing chocolate over vanilla: chocolate city.
    Because members of the Leftist cult are cowards, they not only can’t do anything effective to defend themselves but they castigate those that can defend themselves, those who are defending the rest of us, and basically anyone that they feel safe threatening and abusing. As opposed to real killers and psychos, like Islamic terrorists.
    These Leftists never get PTSD because they never had to face reality. They never had to reconcile the difference between fantasy (Democrats are for the good of the people) and reality (Democrats are robber barons set out to exploit cultures for profit and to kill weak tribes for political benefits). So long as they keep believing that the orders they follow are just and the enemy deserves to be destroyed, they don’t feel stress. That’s good for them because they can’t deal with stress, because they can’t do anything about situations out of their control. They can’t help themselves, let alone help any of us.

    It’s easy to avoid PTSD. All you have to do is to become a serial killer and deny that the things you are killing are human. See, it’s easy. It’s what the Left has done. And it’s why they keep jeering on the US military both for being child killers and for suffering PTSD. Have they ever realized that serial killers have never suffered PTSD? If child molesters and murderers suffered guilt, it doesn’t seem to be stopping them from doing it again. Of couse they don’t realize it. If they realized it they might feel a little bit stressed out for living in a world that they can’t handle.
    What this all means is that these people make themselves, on purpose, easy to manipulate because they can’t handle their own responsibilities. So they have to outsource them to somebody that can, like Obama. But given the Left’s mental, spiritual, and physical disabilities, they can’t even figure out who can or cannot handle reality. That’s one of the problems of living in lala land and having a cup of BS every day. As Obama said, Obama didn’t have the facts so the police acted stupidly. You don’t need to be an idiot to come up with that.You can be a really well brainwashed Leftist.
    Kids are often taking in new stimuli and attempting to figure out the new from the slightly less new. This means that they are perpetually in a state of stress or how shall we say, problems. They have to deal with new problems that they have never ever seen before, almost every day. So adults try to take care of the things the kids can’t, until the kids can. But what do you think that does to the mental landscape of a human, whether kid or adult?
    Has any adult ever liked living recklessly without an ability to handle or save themselves? What about kids, do they like falling over a cliff knowing they can’t fly? Do we? Maybe because we have enough experience and familiarity with reality that we can distinguish fantasy and reality, that we can pretend we are falling to our deaths with a bungie cord attached. But a child would have no reason to believe that they will not die from such a fall.

    Humans like stability and familiarity, because the humans that liked living in perpetually strange places and such, either died cause they took too many risks or didn’t reproduce as well as other variants. That’s why kids need a foundation, something they can feel is true and expect to be true, for their experience doesn’t led them to making too many idealistic assumptions like adults do. Security, consistency, law and order provides that. Boundaries, discipline, and exercise, if we are speaking alpha pack for dogs. Neither child nor adult is all that different in the basic essentials that they need for a prosperous and well adjusted life.

    The Left likes to claim that they are all for law and order, but given their God Obama’s behavior, are we supposed to believe them? The Left likes to claim that their Utopia will guarantee equality and a high standard of living, but given how much they have tortured the people of this country, not to mention the people of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, are we supposed to believe them? When the hell has a Leftist Revolution ever helped the people do anything except starve and be stomped on by the totalitarian gods of the Left?
    The Left promises order and security to children, but adults that take it are nothing but fools. Because Dems can’t handle the economy, national security, personal security, they regress back to being children in need of an authority. But they’re not children. They’re adults, with all the powers and responsibilities of an adult, including life and death decisions affecting other people. Who told these idiots that they could regress back to being children, trusting the Omnipotent Government Parent?

  • Ymarsakar

    There are shades of meaning and then there is a nuclear explosion. Shades are done by human subjective fantasy esque projection, while a nuke explosion doesn’t care what humans think about the mushroom cloud.
    In this, lies a key distinction between the shoddy Leftist fantasy about “black and white” conservatives and what is actually going on. Heh, even in political dichotomy lessons, they cannot keep their racist, wannabe plantation, pro-slavery biases out of the limelight. Ask yourself who actually sees things like racism in “black and white” only colors. *Points at HelenL*
    The key difference isn’t hard to get. But it may be unfamiliar to you and thus hard. Taking the social vs asocial setting in mind, I will provide the Correct response and the Evil Liberal responses.
    Say a sniper has been given the go to shoot some Somalian pirates that are keeping an American hostage. Where is the shade of colors here? Is the shade where the bullet goes slightly to the left or the right of the heart? is the shade in whether the head goes flying straight up or just exploding? Where is the “shade of meaning” here, exactly? The only thing that is happening is genjitsu; it is either true or untrue. The bullet either hits the target or it doesn’t. The bullet either kills the target or it doesn’t. The target either dies or doesn’t. The hostage either dies or doesn’t. Black and white. That is reality, right there. How many words can you write or speak that will change a dead guy back to a lively, genki, person? Tell me that and you will trump the Leftist fascists.
    Right response: Target has been neutralized and the hostage saved by superior Navy SEALs.
    Evil Liberal: Bush messed this up and Obama had to clean it up.

    Professors Hetherington and Weiler contend that the differences stem from profound differences in cognitive styles. Spankers tend to see the world in stark, black-and-white terms, perceive the social order as vulnerable or under attack, tend to make strong distinctions between “us” and “them,” and emphasize order and muscular responses to threats. Parents favoring timeouts feel more comfortable with ambiguities, sense less threat, embrace minority groups — and are less prone to disgust when they see a man eating worms.

    A man without desires is no man at all. It’s not how strongly you feel an emotion like violent impulses or love or hate. It’s about how much discipline you have to keep it in check. The Left, because they tend to play mind games with not only their own emotions but the emotions of others, have never had to control themselves. They have felt no need. They were never violent, you see, it was always right wing nuts and religious freaks, like in WACO. Which is why they can legitimately say, with no doubt in their conscience, that what they did to WACO was right. Killing children equals goodness and justice. And they feel not a shred of doubt or guilt. That is the Leftist manifestation and Progress towards a New World Order.
    The reason for discipline to exist is that once you recognize that there is an internal world and an external world, you need to be able to control your internal world so that it doesn’t mess something up permanently externally that you can’t then “wish” back. Take your wife and kids, cut their heads off because you felt angry, and then tell me how you’re going to “fix” this issue with talk and emotions. Nuance? Timeouts? Embrace minority groups?

    The right view of reality is the acceptance that there is a line that once crossed, can’t be uncrossed. There is a phase shift between black and white, that the two things aren’t the same things and are not interchangeable. Dead bodies are not the same as live bodies, and there’s no point talking about gray shades either. Dead or alive. Alive or dead. The hostage is either saved or he isn’t. He either got shot or he didn’t. The snipers either hit or they missed. The authorization was either given or it wasn’t. This is external reality. Something happens outside in the real world, that you can’t just wish back to where you want it to in your internal world. That’s what discipline is for.
    A black guy comes back to his house with a taxi driver and tries to bust in through his own front door in the middle of the night. A neighbor calls the police and they promptly get there.
    Correct response: Positively identify the police, obtain witness testimony in case of improper conduct, prevent the police from entering attack range if they are disguised insurgents or murderers/kidnappers, and present proper proof to reassure the police that you aren’t setting up an ambush for them.
    Evil liberal response: Mo**F**ker, get the h*ll out!
    *Acts tough like things are about to get violent and you’re going on a mad dog rampage*

    Internal voice of Evil liberal: I’m pissing my pants, somebody help me, I don’t want to deal with strangers, i’m afraid, i’m afraid,  i need them to stay away so I’ll threaten them.
    Now we’re back to social vs asocial. Asocial is where you have crossed the line and all the social stuff you learned about conflict resolution no longer applies. It is either you or him. You vs him. Nuance? The nuance is how you got to this situation and how you’re going to get medevacced and then buried in a pine coffin or cremated. That’s the nuance. The EXTERNAL REALITY is that you are either going to live or going to die.
    The nuance of different escalated responses was in the social environment. It was when you could have NOT insulted him to his face by calling him a MFer. It is when you could have LEFT the bar instead of agreeing to fight outside. It is when you could have NOT have tried to get the last word in after the other guy backed off. The shades of colors exist before your vision gets constricted by adrenaline because you got stabbed. They don’t exist in the asocial.
    Children already naturally pick up on the external reality. They already see things in a literal fashion. Fantasy as truth. Lies as truth. Etc. That’s why they need security that will prevent their inner reality and external reality from shattering them. They need a sense of confidence in themselves, to believe in themselves. On top of that, they need a stable life in external reality, where they are not constantly threatened by unknown dangers or unpredictable backlashes from two by fours (Obama’s Chicago wonderland).
    <B>parents favoring timeouts feel more comfortable with ambiguities, sense less threat</b>
    Pardon me for being vulgar but I can’t figure out how these Leftists ninnies can confidently say they can “sense less threat”. They’re the ones that claim people can’t know Good Sex until they’ve experienced all of it, across multiple partners. And here they are, talking like they are in the know, when they haven’t been in a fight, and even less likely to have been in a life and death situation.
    They are the ones telling me they know when they can sense “threats”? They couldn’t sense it if it got shoved up their backs.

  • Gringo

    Seems to me that libs have a pretty strong reaction to perceived enemies, just like conservatives do.  Just that  libs’ perceived   enemies aren’t  murderers, thieves, or terrorists but conservatives or fundamentalist Christians.

  • MacG

    Has anybody actually seen Nancy P. blink?

  • Ymarsakar

    MacG, probably. But they would have ended up broke.