“If you could go back to 1889 and strangle Adolf Hitler in his crib, would you do it? At one level, the answer is obvious. Of course, you should. If there had been no Hitler, presumably the Nazi Party would have lacked the charismatic leader it needed to rise to power. Presumably, there would have been no World War II, no Holocaust, no millions dead on the Eastern and Western fronts.
“But, on the other hand, if there were no World War II, you wouldn’t have had the infusion of women into the work force.”
Cause and effect are hard, Barbie. Jeebus, can’t Brooks just say that he was wrong about the Iraq War and his cheerleading for it?
Also/Too: this marks the first time this mendacious turd has had anything good to say about women in the workforce; usually he blames them for the moral decline of the country.
I can hardly wait for Driftglass to take his scalpel and vivisect this column.
The ever-polite Ezra Klein ever-politely rips a new hole into David Brooks for his latest preposterous column in the NYTimes. Here’s my favorite exchange:
DB: In my ideal world, the Obama administration would do something Clintonesque: They’d govern from the center; they’d have a budget policy that looked a lot more like what Robert Rubin would describe, and if the Republicans rejected that, moderates like me would say that’s awful, the White House really did come out with a centrist plan.
EK: But I’ve read Robert Rubin’s tax plan. He wants $1.8 trillion in new revenues. The White House, these days, is down to $1.2 trillion. I’m with Rubin on this one, but given our two political parties, the White House’s offer seems more centrist. And you see this a lot. People say the White House should do something centrist like Simpson-Bowles, even though their plan has less in tax hikes and less in defense cuts. So it often seems like a no-win for them.
DB: My first reaction is I’m not a huge fan of Simpson-Bowles anymore; I used to be…
…which is about as ham-handed a way to change the subject as I’ve ever seen. But it was either that or admit that he is a pontificating poltroon who doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Let the facts lead you to a conclusion as Bill Moyers used to say. And the fact is thus submitted into evidence: David Brooks doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The conclusion of course is that the paper of record just got swatted on the nose, and they need to get rid of Bobo sooner rather than later.
Why Brooks agreed to talk to Klein will remain a mystery of the ages.
David Brooks to Teach ‘Humility’ at Yale
Jeebus, the guy who will never admit that he has been wrong about anything (and lord, has he ever been right about anything?) is going to teach a class on humility? But the kicker is: No Final Exam. Just like in Bobo’s life. All pass and no fail.
David Brooks digs rock and roll
In general, I’m not opposed to David F***ing Brooks going to Europe to attend a Bruce Springsteen concert. It’s the probability that he will return that is getting my knickers in a twist.
Anyway, my betters are tackling the substance of this column, so I will only nibble around the edges: why is Mr. Brooks writing about pop culture at all, let alone rock music, which I think it is safe to assume he must hate because it is made by dirty f***ing hippies which he has spent a lifetime blaming for everything from the decline of literacy to bad breath? It boggles the mind.
And before we go too far down the rabbit hole, Brooks writes about Tupac. David Brooks drops Tupac’s name in a dependent clause like he is familiar with the subject. OK, before your head explodes in wonder, rest assured he gets the fundamentals of Tupac so wrong that it is absolutely laughable; I won’t spoil that for you but when you read it, if you know anything about Tupac’s life (or death) I promise you that your pants will wet themselves you will laugh so hard. Brooks–as usual–is skimming the culture.
I also think that there is very little coincidence that his nitwit-in-arms Thomas Friedman is in Europe this week, too. Sweet Jeebus, it makes me think that lady strapped next to the corpse got off easy. Imagine having to share a ride with these two dick-breaths.
The question remains, is David Brooks an idiot or a moron?
Anyway, today Bobo gives us a scolding moral lesson using Jeremy Lin of all people:
Jeremy Lin is anomalous in all sorts of ways. He’s a Harvard grad in the N.B.A., an Asian-American man in professional sports. But we shouldn’t neglect the biggest anomaly. He’s a religious person in professional sports.
We’ve become accustomed to the faith-driven athlete and coach, from Billy Sunday to Tim Tebow. But we shouldn’t forget how problematic this is. The moral ethos of sport is in tension with the moral ethos of faith, whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim.
So did you get that? Lin is an anomaly that we’ve become accustomed to.
Does Brooks even read his own column?
I cannot help myself with the #brooksmeme
Why am I always the last to see these things?
Well, there goes the neighborhood.
At anyrate, yesterday he decided to blog about porn.
David Brooks and porn, there’s a sentence that ought to create shrinkage.