RIP David Brooks

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (167 of them)

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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

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

Nicole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 14:37 (2 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

He really is such a dunce.

Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 18:33 (2 years ago) Permalink

what the hell's he talking about

demolition with discretion (m coleman), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 20:29 (2 years ago) Permalink

yogurt, I think

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 21:51 (2 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

more like Roast in Piss

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

a few generations ago, interracial marriage was against the law

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 21 February 2012 19:28 (2 years ago) Permalink

a few generations ago, bestiality was legal in Florida

ENERGY FOOD (en i see kay), Tuesday, 21 February 2012 19:36 (2 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

beyond self-parody at this point

ploppawheelie V (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 22 February 2012 00:26 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

does your org have a rule against reporting on luncheons?

goole, Wednesday, 29 February 2012 16:13 (2 years ago) Permalink

one more liberal wanting a free ride!

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 29 February 2012 16:15 (2 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

the last half of the sentence OTM

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 29 February 2012 16:46 (2 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

well ok W in 04 too

goole, Wednesday, 29 February 2012 16:49 (2 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 (1 year 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 (1 year ago) Permalink

someone please call his office phone

iatee, Monday, 14 January 2013 23:50 (1 year 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 (1 year 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 (1 year 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 (1 year 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 (1 year 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 (1 year 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 (1 year ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

lol at "the chinese have no word for nerd"

caek, Monday, 4 March 2013 00:31 (1 year ago) Permalink

clean hit:

David Brooks has an unparalleled ability to shape an intellectually interesting idea into the rhetorical arc of an 800-word op-ed piece. The trouble is, a central part of his genius is choosing the little factoids that perfectly illustrate his points. No doubt he's happy enough to use a true fact if the right one comes to hand, but whenever I've checked, the details have turned out to be somewhere between mischaracterized and invented.

caek, Monday, 4 March 2013 00:33 (1 year ago) Permalink

9 months pass...

Is it just me or is there a kind of critical mass of media/internet people piling on him now? I find the timing strange -- I didn't think his latest column was particularly more noteworthy than a lot of his other drivel.

signed, J.P. Morgan CEO (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 18 December 2013 17:04 (1 year ago) Permalink

I was a little bemused too when he was EVERYWHERE in my twitter feed night before last. I checked the brooks threads on here and saw only vague lol refs-- I'l be god damned if I'm giving that little psycho a click so I actually still haven't read the column in q.

yes, i have seen the documentary (Jon Lewis), Wednesday, 18 December 2013 17:07 (1 year ago) Permalink

and hurting / jmm right about this cheapshit article

the final twilight of all evaluative standpoints (nakhchivan), Thursday, 9 October 2014 17:23 (2 months ago) Permalink

And people who know me know I fucking hate David Brooks

my jaw left (Hurting 2), Thursday, 9 October 2014 17:39 (2 months ago) Permalink

Gawker blows

brimstead, Thursday, 9 October 2014 18:48 (2 months ago) Permalink

It's definitely shitty and gross and I doubt anyone would be defending this if it was someone who wasn't the douchey son of a douchey columnist.

Re-Make/Re-Model, Thursday, 9 October 2014 20:06 (2 months ago) Permalink

fuck gawker

Treeship, Thursday, 9 October 2014 20:10 (2 months ago) Permalink

i don't think we know nearly enough about this kid to say he is "douchey" either. all i've gathered from that article is that he smiles a lot in photos.

Treeship, Thursday, 9 October 2014 20:14 (2 months ago) Permalink

The info's all from his Facebook page; if anyone's going to go "His privacy!" about this I'm going to ask about this wonderful world you live in which is not here.

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, October 9, 2014 1:11 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

cool post

example (crüt), Thursday, 9 October 2014 20:15 (2 months ago) Permalink

Have any good stories about young J.B.? Hop in below or shoot us an email.

this addendum is the worst part

Treeship, Thursday, 9 October 2014 20:21 (2 months ago) Permalink

like, they are actively soliciting material to use to smear this person, a private citizen, on a nationally popular website. how is this the same thing as facebook existing?

Treeship, Thursday, 9 October 2014 20:24 (2 months ago) Permalink

i think margaret sullivan made a legitimate point, but that's a long way from singling out someone who's not a public figure and writing an entire article (well, 'article') ridiculing him.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Thursday, 9 October 2014 20:26 (2 months ago) Permalink

Also a lot of the stuff is just about his personal/social life, it's not like they're pointing out some Super PAC he runs or something.

my jaw left (Hurting 2), Thursday, 9 October 2014 20:29 (2 months ago) Permalink

yeah, disclosing his relationship with the israeli army is totally different and unrelated from raiding his facebook profile for pictures and "likes" that encourage readers to make assumptions about what he is like as a person.

Treeship, Thursday, 9 October 2014 20:35 (2 months ago) Permalink

It fits with Gawker/Jezebel's bad habit of trying to show that someone is a Bad Person instead of focussing on one egregious incident. It leaves a bad taste. If you think/know someone's done something wrong then stick to that - don't do an armchair audit of their whole life.

Re-Make/Re-Model, Thursday, 9 October 2014 20:40 (2 months ago) Permalink

the gawker/jezebel tone is so toxic. it's weird to read an article i basically agree with (not this one) and still come away feeling gross.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Thursday, 9 October 2014 20:43 (2 months ago) Permalink

it's the plague of my generation

Treeship, Thursday, 9 October 2014 20:52 (2 months ago) Permalink


polyphonic, Thursday, 9 October 2014 20:53 (2 months ago) Permalink

The info's all from his Facebook page; if anyone's going to go "His privacy!" about this I'm going to ask about this wonderful world you live in which is not here.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, October 9, 2014 1:11 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ok ned, i'll lift whatever info i can about you from the internet and write a high-profile piece for a major website mocking you. that's exactly the same thing as you having a facebook profile, right?

I dunno. (amateurist), Thursday, 9 October 2014 23:13 (2 months ago) Permalink

to be clear i will not actually do this to ned. i was just making a point.

I dunno. (amateurist), Thursday, 9 October 2014 23:14 (2 months ago) Permalink

The info's all from his Facebook page; if anyone's going to go "His privacy!" about this I'm going to ask about this wonderful world you live in which is not here.

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, October 9, 2014 7:11 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Heart u Ned but come on, a private person putting stuff on Facebook doesn't make it ok for a big website or medium to use everything they can find to negatively profile someone just because his father is a douche. It's the stringing together of seemingly unrelated things to make up a profile fitting your idea of someone (or someone's father) that is the scariest thing about this.

definite classic, predicting a solid 8/10 from the p-fork boys (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, 9 October 2014 23:26 (2 months ago) Permalink

David Brooks' son being in the Israeli army seems relevant at least to the extent that he does at times write about Israel. The rest of it is just kind of catty and pointless.

my jaw left (Hurting 2), Friday, 10 October 2014 00:31 (2 months ago) Permalink

FWIW, I've taken the responses on board and have been thinking off and on about it for the past half hour. The larger points about expectations of privacy/guilt-by-association are well taken. (Though frankly any guy from a fraternity who likes Tucker Max makes me a little skeeved separate from anything else; still, I'm not about to grill every last person who unironically likes the Chive or whatever.) And I'll admit the funniest part to me besides the headline, per Alfred's post, was Podhoretz fully embracing his bitter bastard persona at last; then again I did post the direct link so I can't not own that. Likely wouldn't post it now.

Still, though -- building off Milton Parker said, is it just the world that Gawker made or also something else? I keep thinking about news stories from all over the place essentially now regularly talking about photos on social media, posts, etc. when it comes to someone that figures in it, for whatever reason. I guess I'm more jaded than I realize but I honestly wasn't *surprised* that this could happen, and that may be my own burden to bear.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 10 October 2014 00:53 (2 months ago) Permalink

I guess I'm just kind of disappointed to see articles that amount to "Hey look at this fuggin guy," let alone about non-public figures.

my jaw left (Hurting 2), Friday, 10 October 2014 01:18 (2 months ago) Permalink

But that said, look at this fuggin guy:

my jaw left (Hurting 2), Friday, 10 October 2014 01:19 (2 months ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

First line in today's column: "George Eliot was an emotionally needy young woman."

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 14 November 2014 16:42 (1 month ago) Permalink

followed by an account of their prom date

things lose meaning over time (Dr Morbius), Friday, 14 November 2014 16:47 (1 month ago) Permalink

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