4 ms·
Anyone can write what David Brooks wrote, dodging anything of importance about the situation. Here, I'll do with David Brooks what he did with Snowden -- avoidi
by spodek 13y ago
Anyone can write what David Brooks wrote, dodging anything of importance about the situation. Here, I'll do with David Brooks what he did with Snowden -- avoiding looking at the situation, slighting someone's character without knowing anything important. I'll just work with his Wikipedia page.
Here goes...
David Brooks sounds like an intelligent guy, but if you look at his background you see his true colors. Raised in suburban Philadelphia's ultra-wealthy Main Line, he started and has never wavered from an ultra-elite, insider status, leading to today living literally inside the Beltway, the quintessential system man, his status-quo "opinions" on every issue a foregone conclusion.
His intelligence sadly belies his consistent conclusion-first-supporting-argument-second reflexive responses. What else would you expect from someone so ingrained in the establishment -- Yale, Duke, University of Chicago, Wall Street Journal, New York Times. This man may have never said a single word to someone who didn't know where their next meal might come from, drizzled with extra-virgin olive oil with a creme fraiche brulee.
This nation could use discussion of important issues, debate, thoughtful exchange. He delivers rubber stamp answers. We as a nation lose out. While he can't single-handedly deserve credit for our slide into partisan bickering and bureaucracy, he proudly contributes more than his share. And why not, with lucrative speaking fees and book options paving his way.
If you want a pundit to unthinkingly deliver a preconceived notion supporting keeping things the way they are, David Brooks is your man. Sadly, if you want thoughtful consideration of complex issues, he'll stand in the way of whoever would deliver.
---------------
There, how was that? Can I have a job as the knee-jerk conservative guy at the New York Times now?
- nnethercote 13y agoI think you've actually described David Brooks pretty accurately.
- lukifer 13y agoI think that's the point: ad hominem attacks are unhelpful even when they accurate. Snowden's character and motivations should not figure into the broader debate at all.
- a5seo 13y agoLest we forget, Reason nailed Brooks already: "Do something. Is there a two-word phrase in politics more loaded with disguised ideological content? Embedded within is both an urgent call for powerful government action and an up-front declaration that the policy details don’t matter. The bigger the crisis, the more the urgency, the sparser the detail." http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/22/the-simpletons http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/22/the-simpletons
- jckt 13y agoWhy did the NYT hire him? Is it so that they maintain some "balance" in their opinion pieces?
- caseysoftware 13y agoYes, he's their token conservative.. intellectual diversity and all.
- crusso 13y agoHe's more of a milquetoast Republican than a Conservative.
- rquantz 13y agoYes, Ross Douthat is their token conservative.
- thomasjames 13y agoThe reverse Alan Colmes of print media...
- crusso 13y agoI think Alan Colmes is just there to argue with the host or the other guests of whatever show they allow him on. It's like he doesn't even have a setting besides "disagree".
- hindsightbias 13y agoWell, that's a laser accurate description of Brooks, so maybe not the best example...
- bangkoknights 13y agoMeet the British version of David Brooks. "The problem with Glenn Greenwald and the creepy cult that surrounds him" http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/willardfoxton2/100009225/the-problem-with-glenn-greenwald-and-the-creepy-cult-that-surrounds-him/ http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/willardfoxton2/10000...
- contingencies 13y agoCripplingly demonstrative.
- fspeech 13y agoYou wrote amazingly well. Should be a great asset in addition to your hacking skills.
- w_t_payne 13y agoWow. Pretty good!