Patterico's Pontifications

2/17/2006

The Mentality of Rosa Brooks

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 7:24 pm



The DirectTV people took out our Cox cable modem line today, so I’m on the Treo again, and unable to link to our local rag. You’ll have to look this one up yourself. It’s Rosa Brooks, calling Cheney’s hunting accident an example of Cheney being “violent.” In the same piece, she also mentions Islamic violence over cartoons, which has killed numerous people over the past few days. Does she call that “violent”? Nah. That, she calls . . . “protests.”

56 Responses to “The Mentality of Rosa Brooks”

  1. Rosa honey–

    How many people has Dick Cheney killed?

    How many people have been murdered by Islamo-Fascist goons protesting innocous cartoons of the “prophet” (note that I did not capitalize prophet, and I refuse to say the nonsensical “pbuh” everytime his name is mentioned)?

    When are you going to connect the dots, honey, cause the rest of us know what’s going on here!

    Mescalero (9725e9)

  2. It’s ironic that so many who attack the vice president were the same ones that supported Saddam Hussein. Believe me, a day when Saddam shot just one person would be a good day in Iraq. The loony left can’t stop themselves from being hypocrites.

    Leonidas (1efa38)

  3. Rosa’s not happy.

    The Pew Research Center’s report says a combined 84% of Americans are happy. But not Rosa. It seems Democrats are only half as likely as Republicans to be happy. And, she’s quick to point out that “poor people and black people tend, like Democrats, to be party poopers.”

    It seems to offend Rosa that, “Happy people have stronger immune systems than the gloom-and-doom crowd, and they may be more successful in life.” Rosa sees a dark side to all that happiness lurking in the shadows, she says happy people take mental shortcuts and are prone to “cognitive errors.”

    Rosa points out, “Happy people, for instance, may be more likely to rely on ethnic and social stereotypes when evaluating individuals, and happy people also may be more inclined to fall back on simplistic political ideology in lieu of analysis.”

    But, context is important, while Rosa acknowledges the opinion of experts that unhappy people, “are likely to underperform in leadership or social tasks.” (She warns, you might want to think twice before you hire unhappy people as camp counselors.) Rosa sees no contradiction when she concludes that unhappy people “might do better” “reconstructing Iraq, or leading the Free World.”

    In Rosa’s world, “reconstructing Iraq, or leading the Free World” apparently aren’t included in her list of leadership tasks.

    No, Rosa’s not a happy camper, and true to form, she can’t think straight either.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  4. I think it says something about someone that they hunt ‘pen raised quailtards.’

    actus (6234ee)

  5. While a number of the cartoon protests have indeed been violent, my survey of press accounts seems to indicate that nearly all the deaths in cartoon-related protests came at the hands of the Libyan and Pakistani police, not the protesters.

    Parks said that the protests “raged”. Most definitions of rage, both as noun and as verb, indicate that the word connotes violence.

    And, as Actus notes, shooting pen-raised quail for sport is indeed a violent pasttime, especially since it is not justified by reasons of controlling wild animal populations or, apparently, for food.

    m.croche (85f703)

  6. You know, I sometimes knit or crochet

    that means stabbing yarn made from pen-raised animals with hooks and needles

    I’ve even been known to savagely prune my roses with really big clippers

    I’m ulta-violent

    and very happy

    Darleen (f20213)

  7. Was Cheney engaged in quail hunting or tort reform? We’ll never know.

    Wesson (c20d28)

  8. It has been a while since the media has had an opportunity to demonstrate its fecklessness.

    Cheney has a hunting accident.

    The release of the information about the accident is done in a manner guaranteed to put the media into a frenzy of fecklessness.

    After an appropriate interval, Cheney goes on Fox. More wailing and gnashing of teeth, not to mention fecklessness.

    A hint of Carl Rove’s aftershave drifts across the scene.

    Harry Reid and his friends tilt their heads to the side and wonder what happened.

    Just another day in the life of an evil genius.

    Bob (a2bd82)

  9. actus, they were not hunting pen-raised birds. They were hunting wild bobwhite quail.

    How do I know? Cheney said so in his Fox interview. Also, I know people who have hunted on that ranch.

    stace (80e1c6)

  10. m.roche:..” my survey of press accounts seems to indicate that nearly all the deaths in cartoon-related protests came at the hands of the Libyan and Pakistani police, not the protesters.”

    Does that include Nigeria? Via AP: “Most of the dead were Christians beaten to death on the streets by the rioters,” Ezeoke said. Witnesses said three children and a priest were among those killed…”

    Doh!

    TBIRD1107 (066dc6)

  11. My take on this is here.

    If that doesn’t work, the link is: http://intellectualpolitics.blogspot.com/2006/02/everybody-says-it-must-be-so.html

    It could be Harriet redux.

    whitemills (384992)

  12. Whitemills linked us, indirectly, to an NRO article suggesting that, should Dick Cheney resign, he be replaced by John Roberts!

    The idea’s good, but he picked the wrong justice. Replace him with David Souter, so that President Bush can replace Justice Souter with Michael Luttig! :)

    Dana (a90377)

  13. I just e-mailed the LA Times to express my opinion on Rosa Brook’s article. I’ll give a brief part of it. I said I was a female, white, 62, divorced, a republican, made less then $30,000, had two black/white mixed grandchildren, married to black man, white son married to girl from Africa, Christian, & am happy. Her generalizations of happy people showed how simplistic her ideas are. I said I was optomistic about my own life, not the world in general (which I think is a mess). Also, I said that while she said that Cheney was violent, she called the radical Muslim’s protesters. I finished by saying that I didn’t believe in her ideas, but I did believe in mine. I’m just fine, sorry to hear she isn’t. There was more, but won’t bore you.

    Connie Ham (9f37aa)

  14. Don’t feel shy about using the name of the prophet. Once you have read C.S.Lewis or Hilaire Belloc you come to realize that Mohamed(suhn) is just another name for the anti-Christ. That is even alluded to in the Chronicles of Narnia, to get the full impact you must read all seven books of the series.

    jim (3614dd)

  15. Jim…while C.S. Lewis wrote very insightful Christian apologetics, I’d be careful relying on them for your theology. Tread lightly, amigo.

    Jal (9f37aa)

  16. “actus, they were not hunting pen-raised birds.”

    But he has in the past. And I learned of it recently. Says something of a man.

    actus (6234ee)

  17. Oh, Christ, actus did you get tired of boring us at Jeff’s? So, fake but accurate?

    CraigC (4525c5)

  18. Dick Cheney or the kind of men he was hunting with would ever hunt pen raised quail. These men would find it repugnant. I know because I knowhunters like these that love the real hunt of quail. There is no reason to hunt pen raised quail. You also can bet they eat there kill or give it to relatives and friends. Wish they would send me some ummm good.

    Jack Hamilton (5da0ca)

  19. I have fished farm raised and stocked trout streams before. I guess that says something about me. You know fishing there isnt necessary to manage the natural trout population. I will turn myself in to the nearest anger and violence management center so that I can eventually achieve the high moral standards set by people like actus and m.croche.

    buzz (9e5c44)

  20. “Dick Cheney or the kind of men he was hunting with would ever hunt pen raised quail. ”

    Howbout the bloodbath with scalia?

    “Oh, Christ, actus did you get tired of boring us at Jeff’s? So, fake but accurate?”

    Good standard for the Daily Show.

    actus (6234ee)

  21. I’m not a hunter; I can’t make any rational argument against it, but on a visceral level, hunting for sport nauseates me. That said, it’s interesting to me that, in my experience, the people who are most vocal against hunting, and would denounce it as “violent,” are, to use the common parlance, “liberals.” That is, people who believe in using the coercive powers of the State to bring about the kind of society they want. Which means that people who get all moralistic about pointing guns at quail have no problem about pointing guns (by proxy) at their fellow human beings. As long as it’s for a “progressive” cause, of course.

    Bilwick (bd15da)

  22. “Which means that people who get all moralistic about pointing guns at quail have no problem about pointing guns (by proxy) at their fellow human beings.”

    Ya. Liberals love the gun pointing cops!

    actus (6234ee)

  23. You raise an interesting point, actus. My impression is that, by and large “liberals” dislike cops; and yet where would the Welfare State be without armed enforcers? Perhaps in their minds they manage to compartmentalize? That is: Cops protecting peaceful citizens from aggression (muggings, car-jackings, etc.) are “fascist pigs;” cops involved in aggression against peaceful citizens (IRS and BATF agents, for example) are “agents of a progress”?. Or maybe it’s just denial: refusing to see the mailed fist under the Mommy State’s velvet glove. Or simply self-delusion: hating guns, and imagining that when “progressive” laws are enforced, the cops enforcing them will be armed with flowers and love beads? I’m just guessing here, trying to find some logical consistency in the “liberal” mind . . . perhaps a futile quest.

    Bilwick (bd15da)

  24. Bilwick,

    You make a good point. Just like there’s nothing stock about a stock car, there’s nothing liberal about “liberals.”

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  25. “cops involved in aggression against peaceful citizens (IRS and BATF agents, for example) are “agents of a progress”?”

    Does the IRS really come at you with guns?

    actus (6234ee)

  26. Back in the Seventies, when the Tax Revolt was taking off and “liberals,” by their negative reaction to it (the neo-puritan George McGovern denounced tax rebels as “hedonists”), there was a joke: “Q. What’s the difference between a liberal and a fascist?” A. The fascist wears jackboots and the liberal wears Hugh Puppies.” An exagerration, of course, like all satire; and today I guess you’d have to change “Hush Puppies” to “jogging shoes” or “Birkenstocks;” but the underlying point remains valid.

    Bilwick (bd15da)

  27. No, actus, the IRS won’t actually come at you with guns–unless, of course, you resist. That’s when you get to see the guns.

    Bilwick (bd15da)

  28. “No, actus, the IRS won’t actually come at you with guns–unless, of course, you resist. That’s when you get to see the guns”

    Well lordee, look at that liberal principle: that the cops should use guns when they expect guns to be used on them.

    actus (6234ee)

  29. You’re missing the whole point, actus. (Perhaps intentionally–as they say, denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.) The point is: who’s the aggressor? In other words, who initiated the force? Ultimately, the “liberal” deciding, “You know, there oughta be a law. . . .”

    Bilwick (bd15da)

  30. “The point is: who’s the aggressor? ”

    The guy that pulls the gun.

    actus (6234ee)

  31. “Which means that people who get all moralistic about pointing guns at quail have no problem about pointing guns (by proxy) at their fellow human beings.”

    Ya. Liberals love the gun pointing cops!

    -actup

    Yep. That explains why the Branch-Davidian massacre, the MOVE fire bombing and Elian Gonzales gunpoint removal from a closet were all ordered by conservative politicians…
    Oh, wait, they weren’t.

    SCSIwuzzy (03e606)

  32. No, the aggressor is the guy who initiates the force. Just as food for thought: who was the aggressor at Lexington and Concord? (I’m guess “actus” is what I like to call a “Welfare State Tory.”) But hold on to your Hush Puppies or Birkenstocks, actus (see post #27), before you shift the sands any further–was the point of my original post wrong? Are you saying there is no coercive component to the agends of modern “liberalism”? And if there is, does it not conflict with or contradict “liberals'” self-image as pacifistic, peace’n’love gun-haters? How does one reconcile being “pro-peace” with being “pro-coercion”? If you’re a “liberal” yourself, how do you reconcile it?

    Bilwick (bd15da)

  33. “That explains why the Branch-Davidian massacre, the MOVE fire bombing and Elian Gonzales gunpoint removal from a closet were all ordered by conservative politicians…
    Oh, wait, they weren’t.”

    Exactly my point. Liberals: tough on child molesters, compound criminals, and those that steal other people’s kids.

    actus (6234ee)

  34. “Are you saying there is no coercive component to the agends of modern “liberalism”? And if there is, does it not conflict with or contradict “liberals’” self-image as pacifistic, peace’n’love gun-haters?”

    I think that’s the conservative caricature, not a ‘self-image.’ Not the first time that conservative caricatures have not faced up to reality.

    Anybody with a belief in government believes in coercion. And even among anarchists, there would probably still be coercion.

    actus (6234ee)

  35. If the “peace’n’love” image of “liberals” is a caricature, it is one I have encountered in the flesh many, many times over the past forty years. (I’m from NYC, the capital of East Coast “liberalism,” and currently live in Atlanta GA, a “blue-state” enclave in “red state,” so I know whereof I speak.) I don’t know how many times I’ve encountered “progressive” people who, for example, say in effect, “I hate guns,” and express that hatred by advocating either strict gun laws or outright confiscation–which, of course, would be enforced with guns. If you don’t see an elephant-sized contradiction there, actus, it’s beyond my powers to point out. Saying, “All systems involve coercion” is the philosophical equivalent of “all the other kids are doing it.” I don’t initiate force against other people, and I don’t concede the right to others, in or out of government, to initiate force against me. But if you are going to inititate force against me, just do it; don’t hypocritically prettify it. Admit you have the ethics of Attila the Hun and spare me the cant about being “peace-loving.” So–again, just wondering–where would you have stood at Lexington and Concord, atrus? Probably being a good little tax-paying subject of your King and cheering on his troops, right? “Get those child-molesting Minutemen, Colonel Pitcairn!”

    Bilwick (bd15da)

  36. “Saying, “All systems involve coercion” is the philosophical equivalent of “all the other kids are doing it.””

    Or the ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone.’ You tell me that liberals like coercion, and I tell you that everyone does. Its no big discovery, most teenagers who think about politics are able to figure this out.

    “Admit you have the ethics of Attila the Hun and spare me the cant about being “peace-loving.””

    Most teens are also able to see a difference between the system of Atilla the Hun and the one our founding fathers created.

    And they also outgrow their Ayn Rand ‘initiation of force’ simplifications.

    “So–again, just wondering–where would you have stood at Lexington and Concord, atrus? Probably being a good little tax-paying subject of your King and cheering on his troops, right? “Get those child-molesting Minutemen, Colonel Pitcairn!””

    The minutemen molested children?

    actus (6234ee)

  37. The Branch-Davidian killings were a wonderful example of liberal’s idea of morals. There were children in that compound, remember? First, they were molested & then the state got to kill them. How moral & fortunate for them! Also, Elian’s removal has always spoken so loudly of how a liberal thinks. It was fine to take that boy, only covered with a blanket, while the men taking him had bullet-proof vests, gas masks & machine guns. Who were they expecting to hurt them? Obviously, Elian’s safty was not a priority, just theirs. Wow! I also wonder how you see killing millions of babies compared to hunting? I know, in the liberal’s mind an animal is the same as a person & an unborn child is nothing, just a bunch of cells signifying nothing. So moral, so good, so kind. I’m so impressed.

    Connie Ham (9f37aa)

  38. No, the Minutemen didn’t molest children. But it would be something the powers-that-were might say to undercut the justness of their cause, and of course good little Tories would have repeated it. It was just a smart ass comment. We all know nothing like that would ever happen in real life. So how is “the initation of force” a “simplification”? I’m minding my own business, and you want me to do something I don’t want to do. (Give my money to the poor people; hand over my home to the community for “the greater good;” surrender my gun; whatever.) I object; you pass a law to force me. Where is the “complexity” I’m missing out on here? What nuance do I have to see so that I can “grow” into a mentality of placid submission? Pray, enlighten me, and this time try to do it without distorting things I’ve written. (I didn’t say there was no difference between the “system” of Attila the Hun [he had a system?] and that of the Founding Fathers. I wasn’t talking “systems;” I was talking ethics.)

    Bilwick (bd15da)

  39. “It was just a smart ass comment.”

    Exactly.

    “Where is the “complexity” I’m missing out on here?”

    That there are some ways of making laws, of using government power, of initiating force, that are more legitimate than others.

    “I didn’t say there was no difference between the “system” of Attila the Hun [he had a system?] and that of the Founding Fathers. I wasn’t talking “systems;” I was talking ethics.)”

    Fine. ethics. You can’t tell teh difference in ethics from our founders and Attilla the hun? seriously?

    actus (6234ee)

  40. Well lordee, look at that liberal principle: that the cops should use guns when they expect guns to be used on them.

    What’s that supposed to mean? Completely inane remark.

    Gerald A (bdfba2)

  41. “calling Cheney’s hunting accident an example of Cheney being “violent.” In the same piece, she also mentions Islamic violence over cartoons…. That, she calls . . . “protests.””

    Y’all have no sense of humor. She’s being what si known as “tongue in cheek,” people. Don’t be so literal-minded.

    Teri (b9b807)

  42. Atrus says that “there are some ways . . . of initiating force that are legitimate.” Of course–when “legitimate” is a synonym for, “the ways that I like, for purposes I like.”

    As for the difference in ethics between Attila the Hun and the Founding Fathers, I used Attila as simply the embodiment of might-makes-right. In his case he at least didn’t moralize about “the greater good.” If he wanted something, he took it; if you resisted, he killed you. (Sometimes he killed you even if he didn’t resist.) I just looked over my previous posts and I don’t see any instance of me comparing him to the Founding Fathers. (Your pious invocation of whom–just as an aside–strikes me as, well, let’s say, not quite convincing. Big admirer of the 18th Century Locke-Paine, government-distrusting classical liberalism, are you?) I would say, just off the top of my head, that any of the Founding Fathers who owned slaves were guilty of practicing “Attila-ethics;” likewise, any of the Founders who used the legalized-looting function of government to line their pockets. (As I recall Albert Jay Nock writes about this in OUR ENEMY, THE STATE.) Since this is an issue you brought up out of left field (the “shifting sands” tactic), and is not particularly germane to my original point–remember that, folks?– I’ll take the Socratic approach on this. In other words, you tell me.

    In fact, I pretty much don’t see the point in this argument. My original intent was to point was the hypocrisy and self-delusion of people who think of themselves as “peace-loving” and “non-violent” but hold to a political philosophy based on the Mailed Fist and the Iron Boot. (Always, of course, for our own good.) Atrus seems to think
    “liberals” don’t really pose as “peace-loving” and “non-violent,” which suggests to me that he either comes from Bizarro Planet, or is being disingenous. Or neither and is just an honest coercionist who likes forcing people to do things he wants them to do, and likes the fact that government provides a legal avenue for doing so. In which case, further argument would be futile. I’m tempted to say, “Go read Bastiat’s THE LAW and then come talk to me.” I find that trying to persuade “Staat-shtuppers” that they should eschew coercion is akin to logically persuading Whitney Houston to give up blow.

    Bilwick (bd15da)

  43. Atrus says that “there are some ways . . . of initiating force that are legitimate.” Of course–when “legitimate” is a synonym for, “the ways that I like, for purposes I like.”

    It happens to be that I like democracies and republics that follow the rule of law and don’t like dictatorships that don’t. And I do see the former as more legitimate than the latter. Do you? I think when our government taxes me to fight a dictatorship it is more legitimate than when a dictatorship taxes me to overthrow a democracy.

    Atrus seems to think
    “liberals” don’t really pose as “peace-loving” and “non-violent,” which suggests to me that he either comes from Bizarro Planet, or is being disingenous.

    Liberals dropped massive amounts of bombs on Vietnam. I’m not about to imagine them as peace loving or non-violent. MLK, on the other hand, was a peace lover. But even then he trespassed on sacred private property — or advocated it at least.

    You need to outgrow your caricatures of the world. Both the ones you’ve built to explain yourself and others

    I just looked over my previous posts and I don’t see any instance of me comparing him to the Founding Fathers.

    I compared him, and asked you to. They set up a system with taxation, with takings of property. With initiation of force. What do you think of the ethics of their system vs. Atilla the Hun?

    I find that trying to persuade “Staat-shtuppers” that they should eschew coercion is akin to logically persuading Whitney Houston to give up blow

    That’s a cute when. where did you learn ‘staat-shtuppers’?

    actus (6234ee)

  44. As I indicated above, I’ve withdrawn from the debate. You obviously want to initiate force against people (only for “the good of society,” of course–that’s what they all say). I don’t want to (except in self defense), because I see no ethical justification for it. For the same reason, neither do I want to be coerced. coerced. I can’t imagine what Aristotelian logic is going to get you to give up something you’re so hooked on. I did, however, want to take credit for “Staat-shtuppers.” It’s the polite version of another term I came up with; I think you can easily translate into the Anglo-Saxon. It was inspired by an expression the Stockard Channing character uses in SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION, only she uses the term “Star-” instead of “State-” Feel free to use it without fear of copyright infringement. In terms of a slang substitute for “liberal” (as used in 21st Century America, a bogus, deceptive and historically inaccurate term)I actually prefer one not of my own invention: “Librules.” It highlights the coercive dark side of all that warm-and-fuzzy “kumbaya socialism”–what I previously referred to as the mailed fist inside the Nanny State’s velvet glove.

    “The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys”–Shelley.

    Bilwick (bd15da)

  45. You obviously want to initiate force against people (only for “the good of society,” of course–that’s what they all say). I don’t want to (except in self defense), because I see no ethical justification for it.

    You religious extremists piss me off so much.

    “The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys”–Shelley. “

    I am an Anarchist! Wherefore I will
    Not rule, and also ruled I will not be!
    JOHN HENRY MACKAY

    actus (ebc508)

  46. No- Dick Cheney NEVER harmed a fly. …please
    -are you kidding me!?!?
    this administration has killed more people that the “terrorists”
    ever have.

    bluejesus (5b4907)

  47. If Dick Cheney is so great, why hasn’t he thrown his hat into the ring?

    The Liberal Avenger (b8c7e2)

  48. Thanks troll.

    And no, the terrorists and insurgents (one and the same to me) are well ahead of our body count. Civilians are apparently easy to kill when you don’t care who you hurt.

    Scott Jacobs (90eabe)

  49. Bilwick-
    no one “has a gun to your head” you don’t have to stay here with the “Staat-shtuppers” you are free to leave.
    why is your (superior) system not in place ANYWHERE in the world?
    because you know, and I know it would never work.
    people like YOU are the ones who HATE america. all you you do is whine about “liberals.”
    let’s see you put your great ideas into action.
    (oh I forgot- it’s easier to just complain)
    you’re welcome for the public schooling BTW.

    bluejesus (5b4907)

  50. LMFAO… WE are the ones who only complain?

    You haven’t looked at congress in the last, oh, 10 years, have you…

    And remind me… when was public school enacted? remind me…

    Scott Jacobs (90eabe)

  51. Scott Jacobs-
    of course-
    they all look the same from the window of your trailer park
    do you have ant stats to back that up?
    I do.

    bluejesus (5b4907)

  52. you hate “big gov” –
    but you made it bigger
    the “liberals” were fiscally irresponsible –
    but THEY balanced the budget.
    let’s not even get into the lies and hypocrisy (that could take days)
    great job in iraq BTW.

    bluejesus (5b4907)

  53. jack black-
    The Pew Research Center’s report says a combined 84% of Americans are happy.
    and 99% of the 84% are in denial- just like you.

    bluejesus (5b4907)

  54. Great job on Iraq?

    Thanks…

    Guess you’re missing the reports where al Anbar is being quieted, and the surge is working…

    WOn’t you folks look like the right ol’ asses when the surge you are demonizing works, and by ’08 election time Iraq is stable…

    While you’ll try and claim it was because of you, we all know how it will irk you that it worked despite you.

    As for stats? I assume you mean the kill-count. Well, look at it like this: 3100+ soldiers killed, and with the car bombs and such the insurgents and terrorists are at about 4000+, not including 9-11 or Afghanistan…

    And trailor park? sorry bubba… I own a house. Stop projecting.

    Scott Jacobs (90eabe)

  55. Scott Jacobs-
    yes I did, and I hope you are right.
    that’s the difference between you and me. I don’t want to see ANY more people die. (even the brown ones)
    you conveniently leave out the 23,677 Seriously Wounded US troops. but then again you guys only “support the troops” till you don’t need them any more. here’s a stat for you-
    The U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq reports more than 34,000 deaths in 2006 alone. (nice “liberation”)

    bluejesus (5b4907)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2977 secs.