Be forewarned that this is one of those pieces where I vehemently rebut every single thing Brooksie says in his column; he had actually compiled a pretty good streak of pieces I actually agree with most entirely, but this most recent one makes up for all the others.
Here’s the general storyline: Brooksie goes out for his Saturday run - conveniently from the Lincoln Memorial to the Capitol and back. On the way he sees ‘tea party’ protesters carrying signs (mostly say hooray for our side) that read “‘Don’t Tread On Me’ (i.e. I recently watched the John Adams miniseries and therefore think I know what I’m talking about), ‘End the Fed’ (if asked why they would no doubt be unable to provide anywhere near a cogent response) and signs condemning big government, Barack Obama, socialist health care and various elite institutions.”
Gee, Mr. Brooks, perhaps you might expand on said signs. Why, they didn’t read anything like ‘the zoo has an African Lion and the White House has a lyin’ African’ did they? Or what about ‘bury Obamacare with Kennedy’ (courtesy of a supposedly Catholic organization)? Or ‘we came unarmed (this time)’. Do tell us more about the fraternizing that took place between the Black Family Reunion Celebration and the aforementioned tea-baggers. Undoubtedly they were the same ones that also had the signs with Obama in white-face made to look like the joker. It is highly disingenuous hyperbole, at best, to say that ‘some people see every conflict through the prism of race’. Regardless of what Mr. Brooks might intonate, it is most important to continue attempting to have an honest discussion without the conversation being hampered by those who refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
We are then taken on a wild non sequitur of a history ride where the competing virtues of Jefferson and Hamilton and their disciples are espoused with seemingly no end in sight. He finally gets around to asserting that the tea baggers are somehow actually populists and this brand of protest was inevitable as a result of Obama’s agenda, whatever he thinks that might entail.
I simply cannot fathom why someone as seemingly intelligent as Brooksie would be so deliberately ignorant and dismissive of what is so plainly true. He rails against ‘the progressive (read liberal) news media that exaggerates stories like the Joe Wilson shout…’ For some odd reason he fails to mention the not so progressive (read Fox News) ‘news’ media and just how manipulative and instrumental it has been in the aforementioned 9/12 rally. Obviously, like so many other Republicans, he has either deliberately or unknowingly lost touch with reality to such a degree that it is only what he makes of it. That is, these demonstrations can’t be racist because he does not see them as being so.
At the end of the piece he bemoans the notion that ‘the progressive elite is starting to dismiss rural white America as illegitimate and vice versa.’ Well, I can’t speak for the rest of the progressive elite, but regardless of one’s race and geographical location I guess I do tend to see people not at all grounded in reality as illegitimate. So sue me.
Showing posts with label David Brooks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Brooks. Show all posts
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Brooksie & MoDo
3/3/2009
I love how David Brooks is so dead set on calling himself a moderate (all the while admitting that the moderate/’centrist tendency has been politically feckless and intellectually vapid’) and then denouncing Obama, his economic stimulus and general policies as being all but pinko-commie. He writes about the so-called ‘ideological outrages’ of diluting welfare reform, skilled immigrant inflow and school voucher reduction. He talks about a nation where we’re all in it together, which sounds outstanding, where burdens are shared broadly, rather than inflicted upon a small minority. This is truly brilliant, because he’s talking about the rich and then making them sound like real hard luck cases – “minorities”- like it wasn’t they who put us all in this ginormous global economic mess we’re all now in together. He doesn’t want to rebuild the nation on a foundation of debt, but what ‘alternative vision’ have you, Mr. Brooks? A foundation of gum drops and lollipops?
3/4/2009
Then we have Maureen Dowd (let's call her 'MoDo' shall we?), who seems to often fluctuate between amusingly sensible to mildly (or even wildly) insensible; berating all the President’s men (and some of the women) about the omnibus spending bill being overly stuffed with pork. As a principle, I am opposed to pork – but the pork in this bill is considerably less than wicked spending bills of congress’ past ($7.7 billion of $410 billion vs. $49 billion or so of…). It is unrealistic to presume that one can just shut off the spigot entirely on such long running practices as these – she argues that Obama is trying to end the Iraq war, but he is certainly not attempting to end it right here and now (which is what Maureen is railing for re: pork). What she likewise does not mention, that while some earmarks do seem somewhat wasteful on the surface, many of them will indeed either create or sustain jobs in congressional members’ home states/districts. It is strange that she likens John McCain to King Lear and then makes essentially the same arguments as he! In her attempt to cite Shakespeare, she comes out looking quite the fool herself.
I love how David Brooks is so dead set on calling himself a moderate (all the while admitting that the moderate/’centrist tendency has been politically feckless and intellectually vapid’) and then denouncing Obama, his economic stimulus and general policies as being all but pinko-commie. He writes about the so-called ‘ideological outrages’ of diluting welfare reform, skilled immigrant inflow and school voucher reduction. He talks about a nation where we’re all in it together, which sounds outstanding, where burdens are shared broadly, rather than inflicted upon a small minority. This is truly brilliant, because he’s talking about the rich and then making them sound like real hard luck cases – “minorities”- like it wasn’t they who put us all in this ginormous global economic mess we’re all now in together. He doesn’t want to rebuild the nation on a foundation of debt, but what ‘alternative vision’ have you, Mr. Brooks? A foundation of gum drops and lollipops?
3/4/2009
Then we have Maureen Dowd (let's call her 'MoDo' shall we?), who seems to often fluctuate between amusingly sensible to mildly (or even wildly) insensible; berating all the President’s men (and some of the women) about the omnibus spending bill being overly stuffed with pork. As a principle, I am opposed to pork – but the pork in this bill is considerably less than wicked spending bills of congress’ past ($7.7 billion of $410 billion vs. $49 billion or so of…). It is unrealistic to presume that one can just shut off the spigot entirely on such long running practices as these – she argues that Obama is trying to end the Iraq war, but he is certainly not attempting to end it right here and now (which is what Maureen is railing for re: pork). What she likewise does not mention, that while some earmarks do seem somewhat wasteful on the surface, many of them will indeed either create or sustain jobs in congressional members’ home states/districts. It is strange that she likens John McCain to King Lear and then makes essentially the same arguments as he! In her attempt to cite Shakespeare, she comes out looking quite the fool herself.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Letter To the Editor
To the Editor:
Re “Obama Admires Bush” by David Brooks (column, May 16):
It is curious that David Brooks feels so threatened by Barack Obama and his so-called liberal foreign policy proposals that he would resort to name-calling: “He’s not just Jimmy Carter, he’s Noam Chomsky!” (I’ve heard he’s also a smelly-head). I find it curious that Mr. Brooks seems so very insecure about the prospect of returning to the way the United States once conducted diplomacy a long, long time ago; actually TALKING to your enemy! (What a concept!) I will go out on a limb and presume that ever since 9/11, we can no longer employ the old tactics, which I might add – actually worked.
So thanks to Mr. Brooks’ in depth analysis, what we can deduce is that Obama is a really liberal liberal who would rather talk to his enemies than drop a bomb on them, kind of like W.’s wimpy father, H.W. I think Obama should be impeached before he’s even elected president!
(I guess it is not at all coincidental that a certain President W. and his clone, John McCain, are making the exact same argument, which begs the question: is the tail wagging the dog or vice versa?)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/opinion/16brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Re “Obama Admires Bush” by David Brooks (column, May 16):
It is curious that David Brooks feels so threatened by Barack Obama and his so-called liberal foreign policy proposals that he would resort to name-calling: “He’s not just Jimmy Carter, he’s Noam Chomsky!” (I’ve heard he’s also a smelly-head). I find it curious that Mr. Brooks seems so very insecure about the prospect of returning to the way the United States once conducted diplomacy a long, long time ago; actually TALKING to your enemy! (What a concept!) I will go out on a limb and presume that ever since 9/11, we can no longer employ the old tactics, which I might add – actually worked.
So thanks to Mr. Brooks’ in depth analysis, what we can deduce is that Obama is a really liberal liberal who would rather talk to his enemies than drop a bomb on them, kind of like W.’s wimpy father, H.W. I think Obama should be impeached before he’s even elected president!
(I guess it is not at all coincidental that a certain President W. and his clone, John McCain, are making the exact same argument, which begs the question: is the tail wagging the dog or vice versa?)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/opinion/16brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Oh Brother, Brooks!
As Petraeus testifies, Baghdad teeters on edge of erupting
David Brooks should quit his day job and any other job that pertains to his allegedly knowing anything about anything. David, I’m sorry to have to pick on you all the time, but you represent to me a great deal of what is wrong with American news commentary (regardless of how tolerable to Democrats everyone says you are). Over five years ago, you were one of the many pundits who as a shill for this Bush administration thought invading Iraq was simply a fantabulous idea! Now whenever you find it to be expedient, say when a certain General and Ambassador are slated to testify before congress about how the surge has worked, how progress is being made politically and militarily, etc., etc., you toe that exact same line regardless of what the cold hard facts entail. “55% of Iraqis say their lives are going well… 49% now say the U.S. was right to invade Iraq.” ARE YOU $#!TT!NG ME?! The front page of the periodical for which you write even reads: “Iraqi Offensive Against Militia Is Raising Concerns on Stability”.
You argue that a primal mistake made was to assume that an Iraqi democracy would evolve the same way it did here in America. I would argue that it was a primal mistake to invade the country in the first place! “Democrats happily declare that there has been no political progress… because this grand compromise is the only kind of political progress they can conceive of.” This statement feeds into the classical GOP line that Democrats/Liberals/Progressives hate America and therefore do not want to see this country succeed. Listen Brooks, it makes me pretty far from happy to see what has happened to that country and by proxy, our country, as a result of the disastrous foreign policy decisions you so merrily cheer-led. Secondly, political progress at this point in time is nothing less than an oxymoron, moron, so long as our “coalition of the willing” is occupying their country. If you really want to apply the old 1776 analogy, WE – the United States would be the British (the occupiers) and the Iraqis would be those declaring their independence from the tyrannical occupiers. But I guess since neither the Sunnis, nor Shiites, nor Kurds have had a tea party – the analogy does not apply.
Brooks, I assure you that when all is said and done, and you are nothing more than an extraordinarily bad memory of how an American Press Corps should not do their jobs, my grandchildren will look back and say: “Now THAT’s what happens when you have such an abominably ill-informed populous.” You see, the only reason you can get away with spouting off the nonsense you do is because most Americans don’t care nearly enough about this country to call people like you out for the shill you are.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/opinion/08brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
David Brooks should quit his day job and any other job that pertains to his allegedly knowing anything about anything. David, I’m sorry to have to pick on you all the time, but you represent to me a great deal of what is wrong with American news commentary (regardless of how tolerable to Democrats everyone says you are). Over five years ago, you were one of the many pundits who as a shill for this Bush administration thought invading Iraq was simply a fantabulous idea! Now whenever you find it to be expedient, say when a certain General and Ambassador are slated to testify before congress about how the surge has worked, how progress is being made politically and militarily, etc., etc., you toe that exact same line regardless of what the cold hard facts entail. “55% of Iraqis say their lives are going well… 49% now say the U.S. was right to invade Iraq.” ARE YOU $#!TT!NG ME?! The front page of the periodical for which you write even reads: “Iraqi Offensive Against Militia Is Raising Concerns on Stability”.
You argue that a primal mistake made was to assume that an Iraqi democracy would evolve the same way it did here in America. I would argue that it was a primal mistake to invade the country in the first place! “Democrats happily declare that there has been no political progress… because this grand compromise is the only kind of political progress they can conceive of.” This statement feeds into the classical GOP line that Democrats/Liberals/Progressives hate America and therefore do not want to see this country succeed. Listen Brooks, it makes me pretty far from happy to see what has happened to that country and by proxy, our country, as a result of the disastrous foreign policy decisions you so merrily cheer-led. Secondly, political progress at this point in time is nothing less than an oxymoron, moron, so long as our “coalition of the willing” is occupying their country. If you really want to apply the old 1776 analogy, WE – the United States would be the British (the occupiers) and the Iraqis would be those declaring their independence from the tyrannical occupiers. But I guess since neither the Sunnis, nor Shiites, nor Kurds have had a tea party – the analogy does not apply.
Brooks, I assure you that when all is said and done, and you are nothing more than an extraordinarily bad memory of how an American Press Corps should not do their jobs, my grandchildren will look back and say: “Now THAT’s what happens when you have such an abominably ill-informed populous.” You see, the only reason you can get away with spouting off the nonsense you do is because most Americans don’t care nearly enough about this country to call people like you out for the shill you are.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/opinion/08brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Friday, April 4, 2008
Letter to the Editor
To the Editor:
Re: "The View From Room 306" by David Brooks (column, April 4):
While David Brooks does a characteristically lovely job of eulogizing Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. forty years after his death, I was forced to consider Mr. Brooks' more conservative political bent and just how difficult conservatives in particular made life for Dr. King. The Brooks perspective is historically accurate and his insights into Dr. King's final days are indeed moving at times, but which political party adopted the "Southern Strategy" of exploiting the growing rift between those who demanded civil rights and those who demanded a more southern brand of justice for the insurrectionists?
Paul R. Weeks
Staten Island, NY
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/opinion/04brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
Re: "The View From Room 306" by David Brooks (column, April 4):
While David Brooks does a characteristically lovely job of eulogizing Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. forty years after his death, I was forced to consider Mr. Brooks' more conservative political bent and just how difficult conservatives in particular made life for Dr. King. The Brooks perspective is historically accurate and his insights into Dr. King's final days are indeed moving at times, but which political party adopted the "Southern Strategy" of exploiting the growing rift between those who demanded civil rights and those who demanded a more southern brand of justice for the insurrectionists?
Paul R. Weeks
Staten Island, NY
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/opinion/04brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Earth to Mr. Brooks
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/opinion/12brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I am not sure what to make of David Brooks’ column on Friday, for he seems to be genuinely shocked that the modern-day Republican Party is a mere shell of the party that once called such great Americans as Hamilton (actually a Federalist) and Lincoln members (not to mention the populist Prime Minister of Great Britain, Margaret Thatcher). Surprisingly, there is no mention of the second-coming himself, Ronald Ray-Guns (see photo below and of course, to the right) Gipper, for I guess summoning his holiness to appear in the same article as such abominations as John McCain or Mike (I heart) Huckabee is way beneath him. Brooks has somehow managed to deceive himself into believing that it is the “ambitious working-class parents who are the backbone of the G.O.P.” Dave, what are you smoking and where can I get some?! He goes on to say that the G.O.P. “has lost intimate contact with the working-class dreamer who longs to make good.” Dave, methinks you need to take a walk outside of your log cabin and experience intimate contact with reality. Very unfortunately, Barry Goldwater is no longer with us and his brand of conservatism has been replaced with Republican ideals that are far from conservative, if not outright extremist. At the same time, he seems to be equally blown away by the fact that Democratic presidential candidates have considerably more cogent and concrete plans regarding both foreign AND domestic policies! Here is perhaps the biggest mind-blower of all: many if not most of Hillary Clinton’s policies are more Republican-esque than they are populist! HOLY COW! I find it perplexing that an op-ed columnist for arguably the best daily newspaper in the nation could be so painfully out of touch. I mean if he wrote for say, The Washington Times, that would be one thing – but this is The New York Times, man! I know I’ve done my fair share of trashing it in the past, but it is one of the few real American news sources left that has at least a shred of integrity left (sans David Brooks). I realize that he is the token Republican much like how Alan Colmes is the token Democratic on Fox News; the supposed member of the opposition party that is at least somewhat sympathetic (mostly just pathetic though) to the generally representative views of the outlet. I guess everyone on the left has to take at least one shot at Davey B. – well, this has been mine.
I am not sure what to make of David Brooks’ column on Friday, for he seems to be genuinely shocked that the modern-day Republican Party is a mere shell of the party that once called such great Americans as Hamilton (actually a Federalist) and Lincoln members (not to mention the populist Prime Minister of Great Britain, Margaret Thatcher). Surprisingly, there is no mention of the second-coming himself, Ronald Ray-Guns (see photo below and of course, to the right) Gipper, for I guess summoning his holiness to appear in the same article as such abominations as John McCain or Mike (I heart) Huckabee is way beneath him. Brooks has somehow managed to deceive himself into believing that it is the “ambitious working-class parents who are the backbone of the G.O.P.” Dave, what are you smoking and where can I get some?! He goes on to say that the G.O.P. “has lost intimate contact with the working-class dreamer who longs to make good.” Dave, methinks you need to take a walk outside of your log cabin and experience intimate contact with reality. Very unfortunately, Barry Goldwater is no longer with us and his brand of conservatism has been replaced with Republican ideals that are far from conservative, if not outright extremist. At the same time, he seems to be equally blown away by the fact that Democratic presidential candidates have considerably more cogent and concrete plans regarding both foreign AND domestic policies! Here is perhaps the biggest mind-blower of all: many if not most of Hillary Clinton’s policies are more Republican-esque than they are populist! HOLY COW! I find it perplexing that an op-ed columnist for arguably the best daily newspaper in the nation could be so painfully out of touch. I mean if he wrote for say, The Washington Times, that would be one thing – but this is The New York Times, man! I know I’ve done my fair share of trashing it in the past, but it is one of the few real American news sources left that has at least a shred of integrity left (sans David Brooks). I realize that he is the token Republican much like how Alan Colmes is the token Democratic on Fox News; the supposed member of the opposition party that is at least somewhat sympathetic (mostly just pathetic though) to the generally representative views of the outlet. I guess everyone on the left has to take at least one shot at Davey B. – well, this has been mine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
