RIP David Brooks

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (301 of them)

my fav douthat moment was when i saw him interviewed on tv and the interviewer read a wonkete quote that called him a something like a misogynist neck beard homunculus and his response was all 'well sometimes you make arguments that work and sometimes they kinda fall flat but you know' and it was like dawg they just called u a homunculus

ice cr?m, Thursday, 13 October 2011 20:29 (3 years ago) Permalink


unorthodox economic revenge (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 13 October 2011 20:33 (3 years ago) Permalink

In November 2009 I saw Douthat on a Friday at noon in the gay portion of Dupont Circle with a man-friend.

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 13 October 2011 20:36 (3 years ago) Permalink

2 months pass...

haha wow:

s.clover, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:57 (3 years ago) Permalink

this turdball should write slashfic:

Occasionally you get a candidate, like Tim Pawlenty, who grew up working class. But he gets sucked up by the consultants, the donors and the professional party members and he ends up sounding like every other Republican. Other times a candidate will emerge who taps into a working-class vibe — Pat Buchanan, Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin. But, so far, these have been flawed candidates who get buried under an avalanche of negative ads and brutal coverage.

This year, Romney is trying to establish some emotional bond with the working class by waging a hyperpatriotic campaign: I may be the son of a millionaire with a religion that makes you uncomfortable, but I love this country just like you. The strategy appears to be only a partial success.

Enter Rick Santorum.

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:59 (3 years ago) Permalink

The country doesn’t want an election that is Harvard Law versus Harvard Law.

wait, hasn't david brooks spent years arguing that this is a perfectly good thing??

call all destroyer, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 03:32 (3 years ago) Permalink

If you took a working-class candidate from the right, like Santorum, and a working-class candidate from the left, like Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and you found a few islands of common ground, you could win this election by a landslide.

Brown was born in Mansfield, Ohio, the son of Emily (née Campbell) and Charles Gailey Brown, M.D.[1] He was named after his maternal grandfather. He became an Eagle Scout in 1967. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Russian studies from Yale University in 1974. At Yale, he was in Davenport College, the same residential college as U.S. Presidents George H. W. and George W. Bush

jhøshea nrq (nakhchivan), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 03:38 (3 years ago) Permalink

and you found a few islands of common ground

Sometimes he sounds just like Tom Friedman

curmudgeon, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:18 (3 years ago) Permalink

Has anyone read the Life Reports David Brooks has been running in the nytimes? It's a really good way to make yourself hopeless and depressed.

Nicole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 14:37 (3 years ago) Permalink

Otoh, you can probably say that about anything relating to David Brooks.

Nicole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 14:37 (3 years ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

had to physically restrain myself from ripping the skin off my face as I was reading this.

s.clover, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 18:08 (3 years ago) Permalink

He really is such a dunce.

Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 18:33 (3 years ago) Permalink

what the hell's he talking about

demolition with discretion (m coleman), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 20:29 (3 years ago) Permalink

yogurt, I think

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 21:51 (3 years ago) Permalink

He is doing a little kid level response to the standard criticism of Murray's latest book

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 22:17 (3 years ago) Permalink

more like Roast in Piss

happiness is the new productivity (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 16:22 (3 years ago) Permalink

Please take a number, if you would like to be the next columnist/blogger/economist etc. to critique David Brooks' latest pronouncement:

Here's Dean Baker

Brooks also has an interesting theory on the loss of skills. He tells readers:

"The American social fabric is now so depleted that even if manufacturing jobs miraculously came back we still would not be producing enough stable, skilled workers to fill them."

Five years ago we had two million more people employed in manufacturing than we do today. Has the social fabric become so depleted in this period that these people or others could now not fill these jobs if they came back? If Brooks really thinks that the ill effects of unemployment are that extreme he should be screaming for more stimulus in every column.

curmudgeon, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 21:11 (3 years ago) Permalink

brooks recasts real world problems as a morality play in his role as conservative apologist: every david brooks column

lag∞n, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 21:14 (3 years ago) Permalink

tho often i guess they are not so much real world problems as fake made up problems

lag∞n, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 21:15 (3 years ago) Permalink

Today's helping, courtesy of a certain ilx alumnus:

But even while grappling with the tension between religious values and contemporary cultural values, which is basically well within Brooks’ wheelhouse, he demonstrates a hilarious misunderstanding of sports, and what sports are “about,” because Mr. Brooks has been spending far too much time in his cloistered elite liberal media ivory tower munching on brie and arugula and not enough time among Real Americans in their “Sporting Taverns” watching “The Big Game” over a pint of mass-market domestic lager.

Spleen of Hearts (kingfish), Friday, 17 February 2012 21:59 (3 years ago) Permalink

suspect beating up brooks when u need an easy column will outlast "analyzing" linsanity/linreality tbh

the fading ghost of schadenfreude whiplash (Hunt3r), Friday, 17 February 2012 22:24 (3 years ago) Permalink

A few generations ago, teenagers went steady. But over the past decades, the dating relationship has been replaced by a more amorphous hook-up culture.

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 21 February 2012 19:20 (3 years ago) Permalink

a few generations ago, it was legal to marry a 15 year old

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 21 February 2012 19:28 (3 years ago) Permalink

a few generations ago, interracial marriage was against the law

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 21 February 2012 19:28 (3 years ago) Permalink

a few generations ago, bestiality was legal in Florida

ENERGY FOOD (en i see kay), Tuesday, 21 February 2012 19:36 (3 years ago) Permalink

The half-century between 1912 and 1962 was a period of great wars and economic tumult but also of impressive social cohesion. Marriage rates were high. Community groups connected people across class

In the half-century between 1962 and the present, America has become more prosperous, peaceful and fair, but the social fabric has deteriorated. Social trust has plummeted. Society has segmented. The share of Americans born out of wedlock is now at 40 percent and rising.

Ah, the good ol' days..... If only married people had kids, we could have impressive social cohesion and a strong social fabric like we did before 1961, when only men could get decent jobs and we kept those darned negroes out of our good schools, restaurants, and bus seats....

everything else is secondary (Lee626), Tuesday, 21 February 2012 19:41 (3 years ago) Permalink

beyond self-parody at this point

ploppawheelie V (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 22 February 2012 00:26 (3 years ago) Permalink

Can't be a coincidence that his name is *this* close to douche-hat:

s.clover, Wednesday, 22 February 2012 00:42 (3 years ago) Permalink

First they went after the Rockefeller Republicans, but I was not a Rockefeller Republican. Then they went after the compassionate conservatives, but I was not a compassionate conservative. Then they went after the mainstream conservatives, and there was no one left to speak for me.

iatee, Wednesday, 29 February 2012 15:58 (3 years ago) Permalink

Got pretty bummed because he's scheduled to speak at a conference I'll be attending next month, which meant I would have had to cover his talk for our org's magazine. Was dreading that. But turns out he's speaking at a luncheon during the conference, so I think I'm free of that burden!

andrew m., Wednesday, 29 February 2012 16:12 (3 years ago) Permalink

does your org have a rule against reporting on luncheons?

goole, Wednesday, 29 February 2012 16:13 (3 years ago) Permalink

one more liberal wanting a free ride!

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 29 February 2012 16:15 (3 years ago) Permalink

David Brooks making right-wingers angry:

I would also point out that the Rockefeller Republicans were losers and compassionate conservatism put us on the brink of financial ruin

curmudgeon, Wednesday, 29 February 2012 16:44 (3 years ago) Permalink

the last half of the sentence OTM

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 29 February 2012 16:46 (3 years ago) Permalink

Similar statements were made about Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and John McCain.

maybe reagan but otherwise, no, child

goole, Wednesday, 29 February 2012 16:49 (3 years ago) Permalink

well ok W in 04 too

goole, Wednesday, 29 February 2012 16:49 (3 years ago) Permalink

9 months pass...
3 weeks pass...

The strategies covered here start from a similar premise—that human beings are blessed with many talents but are also burdened by sinfulness, ignorance and weakness, which is why I call on both parties for common sense solutions to our problems, the most notable of which is a cat o' nine tails.

the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 14 January 2013 23:39 (2 years ago) Permalink

We will pay special attention to those who attended elite prep schools and universities.

u don't say

flopson, Monday, 14 January 2013 23:40 (2 years ago) Permalink

someone please call his office phone

iatee, Monday, 14 January 2013 23:50 (2 years ago) Permalink

Modern societies have become economically and socially more unequal. We will explore status competition and the desire for social distinction—executives who feel unabashed when asking for lavish salaries. We will ask whether it is proper to put a Yale window sticker on the back of your car. We will look at codes of social modesty and ask whether modest people make better business leaders

Mordy, Monday, 14 January 2013 23:53 (2 years ago) Permalink

"Students will be asked to grapple with the indictment of their generation made by Christian Smith, Alasdair Macintyre and Jean Twenge."

Matt Armstrong, Monday, 14 January 2013 23:55 (2 years ago) Permalink

Brooks rose into prominence as a moderate Republican and has enjoyed immense success and prestige as a result. Psychologically, he could hurl himself from a moving car more easily than he could reject Republicanism, no matter how batshit crazy the party becomes.

Aimless, Saturday, 19 January 2013 17:56 (2 years ago) Permalink

same with Frum at this point, imo. i realize he can't begin to approach the loathsomeness of Brooks, but his blog basically serves to titillate liberals (who the fuck else pays attention to him?) and provoke a chorus of 'i-told-you-so's'

except for his recent weird preoccupation with the evils of zomg marihuana and the fact that he can't get his mouth off Israel's dick for 5 seconds, i really don't understand how he's still able to call himself a Republican with a straight face.

i suppose renouncing Republicanism would damage his brand, his blog traffic would suffer and he wouldn't be one of cable news' 4 go-to guys who are "trying to save the party"

Still S.M.D.H. ft. (will), Saturday, 19 January 2013 18:33 (2 years ago) Permalink

(re Frum on pot and Israel: i realize that neither of these positions would preclude one from being a card-carrying Dem)

Still S.M.D.H. ft. (will), Saturday, 19 January 2013 18:35 (2 years ago) Permalink

I mind Frum far less than Brooks. At least Frum gives the impression that he has groggily awakened from a nightmare.

the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 19 January 2013 18:39 (2 years ago) Permalink

well, family-operated business would mean at least two members of a family run the business. so, again, really? 90% of all businesses?

scott seward, Friday, 8 May 2015 16:46 (5 months ago) Permalink

at least two members of a family run the business

it does?

anyway Brooks is a moron it's safe to say that number is bullshit

Οὖτις, Friday, 8 May 2015 16:47 (5 months ago) Permalink

I dunno, Wikipedia says

Family business is the oldest and most common model of economic organization. The vast majority of businesses throughout the world—from corner shops to multinational publicly listed organizations with hundreds of thousands of employees—can be considered family businesses.[1]

I wouldn't be that surprised.

jmm, Friday, 8 May 2015 16:50 (5 months ago) Permalink

90% seems high to me too, but i mean what is a business and what does it mean to be part of it, i help out my dad w his business occasionally is that family business now idk

lag∞n, Friday, 8 May 2015 16:52 (5 months ago) Permalink

sure they can be, if you're willing to call franchises operated by families as "family businesses" or huge corporations with majority stockholders from a single family as "family businesses" etc. I mean it's just a dishonest rhetorical device, it doesn't reflect reality.


Οὖτις, Friday, 8 May 2015 16:52 (5 months ago) Permalink

every corporation has a right to a family too, just as it has a relationship with God, its creator.

irl sweatpants (Hunt3r), Friday, 8 May 2015 16:55 (5 months ago) Permalink

corporations are families, hello

lag∞n, Friday, 8 May 2015 16:58 (5 months ago) Permalink

Business has a right to children

See the Belz up in the sky, somebody cancelled SVU (GOTT PUNCH II HAWKWINDZ), Friday, 8 May 2015 23:01 (5 months ago) Permalink

90 percent of businesses around the world are family-operated businesses

this is shocking? pretty much goes from the murdochs and the ny times and the koch bros down to yr corner store and w33d dealer

mookieproof, Saturday, 9 May 2015 00:38 (5 months ago) Permalink

to da mob (family)

Mademoiselle Coiffures (mattresslessness), Saturday, 9 May 2015 00:41 (5 months ago) Permalink

99% of business are like little mom and pop businesses, it's just that a small percentage of businesses seem to dominate commerce.

he quipped with heat (amateurist), Saturday, 9 May 2015 04:24 (5 months ago) Permalink

Trying to imagine the puffed-up pinkish glow this gave to Mr. Brooks' jowls this morning:

something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Sunday, 10 May 2015 02:26 (5 months ago) Permalink

redford kind of a dim bulb. part of me kinda doesn't want to live long enough to see brad pitt become redford. both kinda not-great dim bulb pretty boys. like warren basically. for some reason i'll never forget being on nantucket when i was a little kid and a funny cab driver going on an on about how short robert redford was and how terrible his skin was! she was really shocked. he's got a couple of inches on tom anyway.

scott seward, Sunday, 10 May 2015 02:38 (5 months ago) Permalink

would pay to see cruise as a hobbit

Aimless, Sunday, 10 May 2015 03:30 (5 months ago) Permalink

Would pay to see cruise as a hobbit and get murked by one of those stocky beardo dudes with axes

brosario nawson (m bison), Sunday, 10 May 2015 13:39 (5 months ago) Permalink

even harry pooper is a hobbit next to K-Ho.

scott seward, Sunday, 10 May 2015 16:27 (5 months ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...


scott seward, Thursday, 4 June 2015 14:41 (4 months ago) Permalink

david brooks' face should come with a trigger warning...

scott seward, Thursday, 4 June 2015 14:42 (4 months ago) Permalink

plus, how many PC backlashes do i have to live through?

scott seward, Thursday, 4 June 2015 14:42 (4 months ago) Permalink

it's political correctness gone mad GONE MAD

Keith Moom (Neil S), Thursday, 4 June 2015 14:43 (4 months ago) Permalink


scott seward, Thursday, 4 June 2015 14:44 (4 months ago) Permalink

excellent URL there

Keith Moom (Neil S), Thursday, 4 June 2015 14:45 (4 months ago) Permalink

haha, it really is!

scott seward, Thursday, 4 June 2015 14:47 (4 months ago) Permalink

it doesn't help that the model they used to illustrate their article totally looks like someone i would want to shut up.

scott seward, Thursday, 4 June 2015 14:47 (4 months ago) Permalink

said the same thing yesterday:

Here's today's discussion subject:

lol @ at the url

― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, June 3, 2015 9:35 AM

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 4 June 2015 14:49 (4 months ago) Permalink

on this thread: Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 4 June 2015 14:49 (4 months ago) Permalink

ah, okay, didn't see that...

scott seward, Thursday, 4 June 2015 14:56 (4 months ago) Permalink

too easy to resist though!

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 4 June 2015 15:12 (4 months ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

The Road to Character is an engaging book; Brooks works hard to save his soul—and ours. He is as passionate about moral improvement as a self-described “narcissistic blowhard” can be. The sections recommending that we surrender to love don’t quite attain the level of love drunkenness one finds in, say, the Song of Songs, but aspire to that bliss. Chandler’s 1854 advice book also extolled love. Lincoln marked a passage: “The motive power of man is Affection. . . . Our Character is the complex of all that we love.”

not credible

j., Monday, 27 July 2015 17:11 (2 months ago) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.