― don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 22 December 2005 18:51 (7 years ago) Permalink
― TOMBOT, Thursday, 22 December 2005 18:53 (7 years ago) Permalink
these "cellular" "telephones" represent a paradigm shift that our founders never intended
― älänbänänä (alanbanana), Thursday, 22 December 2005 18:59 (7 years ago) Permalink
― TOMBOT, Thursday, 22 December 2005 19:00 (7 years ago) Permalink
― TOMBOT, Thursday, 22 December 2005 19:01 (7 years ago) Permalink
Sorry everyone else asked for it. :(
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 22 December 2005 19:18 (7 years ago) Permalink
m.
― msp (mspa), Thursday, 22 December 2005 20:36 (7 years ago) Permalink
this reminds me of the one bloom county strip where steve dallas cries when he finds out "knight rider" is a children's show.
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 22 December 2005 20:38 (7 years ago) Permalink
― elmo, patron saint of nausea (allocryptic), Thursday, 22 December 2005 20:53 (7 years ago) Permalink
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 22 December 2005 21:01 (7 years ago) Permalink
“One of the things I’ve found in life is that politicians are a lot more sincere than us journalists and we are more sincere than the people that read and watch us.µ
vid here
― kingfish trapped under ice (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 10 August 2006 22:27 (6 years ago) Permalink
On "Meet the Press," challenged on an assertion that 10,000 Iraqis will die every month if the U.S. pulls out, The New York Times columnist admits he just picked the number "out of the air."
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003615101
― Martin Van Burne, Monday, 23 July 2007 14:51 (5 years ago) Permalink
I saw the broadcast. He also implied that it's worth losing a few hundred Americans a month if it keeps 10,00,00o,00,000,000 Iraqis from dying. For once Bob Woodward acted like a journalist and went after him.
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, 23 July 2007 14:54 (5 years ago) Permalink
As much as I hate to defend Brooks, I think this is an unfair "gotcha" slam - he was obviously using the number 10,000 rhetorically to begin with. He's just trying to argue that even more Iraqis will die if we pull out, which may or may not be true but is not exactly an assertion "out of the air."
― Hurting 2, Monday, 23 July 2007 14:54 (5 years ago) Permalink
Given that so many generals, Bushies, neocons, and "experts" have offered their own out-of-the-air assertions since 2002, I'm prepared to slap the shit out of Brooks, especially after that slavish Bush column he wrote last week.
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, 23 July 2007 15:00 (5 years ago) Permalink
xpost
But Hurting, he's inserting an exact number to make a hypothetical scenario seem like a concrete actuality. Far from the worst of his crimes, but it highlights how slippery his support for his arguments typically is.
― Martin Van Burne, Monday, 23 July 2007 15:03 (5 years ago) Permalink
In other words, I'd let this go in many other cases, but Brooks deserves to be called out on this.
― Martin Van Burne, Monday, 23 July 2007 15:04 (5 years ago) Permalink
Ok, but advocates of withdrawal say stuff like "It can't get worse than it already is" all the time, which is just as hypothetical.
― Hurting 2, Monday, 23 July 2007 15:05 (5 years ago) Permalink
Besides, how literal-minded do you have to be to think that David Brooks is claiming to know exactly how many Iraqis will die per month?
― Hurting 2, Monday, 23 July 2007 15:06 (5 years ago) Permalink
Well, he claims to know a lot of stuff that he doesn't!
But regardless, this sort of rhetoric gets those numbers out there as talking points. Soon enough, 10K and 125 become the accepted estimations that you have to argue against.
― Martin Van Burne, Monday, 23 July 2007 15:10 (5 years ago) Permalink
Should we just keep a running tally of his clueless Obama/"class warfare"/"lakefront liberal" columns that he dribbles out like so much Olean?
F'instance
Perhaps he'll finally reach the point of just doing a find/replace of "Kerry" with "Obama" on his shit from 4 years ago. It would certainly save him effort.
― kingfish, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 15:17 (4 years ago) Permalink
Methinks that lean times at the Times call for a cutback:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/opinion/03brooks.html
― autosocratic asphyxiation (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 3 February 2009 18:21 (4 years ago) Permalink
actually i kind of liked that column--he's right, all Ward 3'rs hate everyone in Bethesda and Potomac.
― Mr. Que, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 18:25 (4 years ago) Permalink
I grew up in Ward 3. Maybe the dynamics have changed since I lived there (due to 8 years of republican rule?) but at the time I didn't sense that there was a huge distinction seen between that and Bethesda. Also Ward 3 was full of incredibly intelligent, interesting people who could have made much more money in the private sector and felt some kind of calling to government.
"Nyah, they're just jealous" -- this passes for biting social commentary?
― autosocratic asphyxiation (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 3 February 2009 18:37 (4 years ago) Permalink
yeah i was kind of kidding--like everything else he writes about he's way over simplified everything. dude is such a goober
― Mr. Que, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 18:40 (4 years ago) Permalink
ah ok, I think I see the sarcasm now
― autosocratic asphyxiation (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 3 February 2009 18:42 (4 years ago) Permalink
as far as i can tell brooks never knows if he's kidding or not.
― call all destroyer, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 19:00 (4 years ago) Permalink
its funny how in their search for a palatable republican the times found the most inane guy in the wrold
― ice cr?m, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 19:03 (4 years ago) Permalink
"OK, fine. Let's talk about inanity."
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 19:05 (4 years ago) Permalink
David Brooks is the name of:David Allen Brooks (born 1947), American film and television actor who played archaeologist Max Eilerson on the science-fiction television series CrusadeDavid Brooks (author) (born 1953), Australian author of short stories and co-editor for SoutherlyDavid "Bubba" Brooks, American jazz musicianDavid Brooks (inventor), inventor who patented an innovative insulator for telegraph lines in 1867 while working for the Central Pacific RailroadDavid Brooks (journalist) (born 1961), commentator for The New York Times and other publicationsDavid "Mavado" Brooks (musician), Jamaican dancehall artistDavid Brooks (murderer) (born 1955), teenaged accomplice of serial killer Dean CorllDavid Brooks (politician) (1756–1838), United States representative in the Fifth United States CongressDavid Brooks (rugby league), Australian rugby league footballerDavid Brooks (rugby union), British rugby union footballer
― call all destroyer, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 19:10 (4 years ago) Permalink
No results found for "gayvid brooks".
― velko, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 19:15 (4 years ago) Permalink
― velko, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 19:36 (4 years ago) Permalink
Maybe this is the David Brooks thread I'm looking for.
Taibbi dissects what has got to be one of the worst things Brooks has written in recent memory.
http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2010/01/27/populism-just-like-racism/
― KORGÜLL THE EXCHEQUER (GOTT PUNCH II HAWKWINDZ), Thursday, 28 January 2010 15:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
There he was on PBS last night talking about the State of the Union and all I could think about at the time was his error-filled hateful post on Haiti.
Taibbi needs to challenge him to a public debate.
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 28 January 2010 16:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
MT really on fire there
― Rage, Resentment, Spleen (Dr Morbius), Friday, 29 January 2010 17:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
It's hard to believe that the same columnist today wrote a piece that channels some sort of "saner Ross Perot" populist that Obama should either become or lose to in 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/opinion/29brooks.html?ref=opinion
― killah priest, Friday, 29 January 2010 18:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
in private he wanks to military coups tho
― u b ilxin' (Hunt3r), Friday, 29 January 2010 18:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
it is a source of amazement in my daily life that this guy is allowed to write anywhere, much less for the nyt
― call all destroyer, Friday, 29 January 2010 18:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
And appear on PBS and NPR.
So he wants a 'Perot' to turn Obama into a Clinton to get rid of the deficit and not do any of those liberal things he thinks are predictable. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
― curmudgeon, Friday, 29 January 2010 19:52 (3 years ago) Permalink
On a minor note, it's A HUGE pet peeve when a writer, usually a columnist, tries to avoid using a cliché by modifying it. Like:
There is a specter haunting America: the specter of a saner, updated version of Ross Perot.
― Blue Fucks Like Ben Nelson (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 29 January 2010 19:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
"there is a parrot haunting america: an avian, updated version of phil spector"
― u b ilxin' (Hunt3r), Friday, 29 January 2010 19:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
he reads like a columnist you'd find in an airplane magazine
― bnw, Friday, 29 January 2010 19:57 (3 years ago) Permalink
it's not even a matter of disagreeing with him--i just don't think he's very bright.
― call all destroyer, Friday, 29 January 2010 19:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
lol or what bnw said!
He's swayed by power and the kind of self-mocking assurance that he wishes he had.
― Blue Fucks Like Ben Nelson (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 29 January 2010 19:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
aren't we all
― that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Friday, 29 January 2010 20:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
i kind of agree with that column?
i think Obama could use a little crazy Perot/crazy chart stuff right about now
― that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Friday, 29 January 2010 20:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
A spectre is haunting Mr. Que.
― Blue Fucks Like Ben Nelson (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 29 January 2010 20:01 (3 years ago) Permalink
but i mean Brooks usually drives me crazy with his bullshit
― that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Friday, 29 January 2010 20:02 (3 years ago) Permalink
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/02/your-use-of-data-for-any-purpose-but-validating-david-brookss-lazy-intuitions-infuriates-david-brooks
On Brooks' attempt to argue with Nate Silver over baseball stats
― The New Jack Mormons! (kingfish), Thursday, 21 February 2013 22:12 (3 months ago) Permalink
Spectacular column.
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 01:06 (1 month ago) Permalink
its incomprehensible.
― scott seward, Wednesday, 3 April 2013 01:20 (1 month ago) Permalink
why isn't this guy recognized as the Murray Kempton of his generation
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 01:28 (1 month ago) Permalink
i think the nyt is just keeping him around now because it's rumored his head is filled with nougat and they're just waiting for the right moment to crack him open.
― Spectrum, Wednesday, 3 April 2013 01:33 (1 month ago) Permalink
beautiful!
― s.clover, Wednesday, 3 April 2013 04:03 (1 month ago) Permalink
Was waiting for this to be posted. I don't remember if Taibbi made the point that marriage necessarily implies few of the constraints Brooks presumes it does.
― jaymc, Wednesday, 3 April 2013 04:44 (1 month ago) Permalink
incomprehensible yes and prematurely senile like kempton you bet and yet recognizable in the fog is a married-too-long middle age guy wondering about the "freedom" he was undoubtedly (in brooks case) too uptight to exercise/enjoy when he was single
― screen scraper (m coleman), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 10:20 (1 month ago) Permalink
haha m@rk: I was being sarcastic (I love Kempton).
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 10:51 (1 month ago) Permalink
me too and i shouldnt have been disrespectful but those last few years in the ny post he was the oracular rambler
― screen scraper (m coleman), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 11:41 (1 month ago) Permalink
and yet recognizable in the fog is a married-too-long middle age guy wondering about the "freedom" he was undoubtedly (in brooks case) too uptight to exercise/enjoy when he was single
This. If I was Mrs Brooks I would be making a bed for David on the sofa after reading his column.
― media conglomerates are pedaling the same product (stevie), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 11:42 (1 month ago) Permalink
I'd be strapping one on.
― alternately mean and handsy (Eric H.), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 12:24 (1 month ago) Permalink
A decaying social fabric, especially among the less fortunate.
Taibbi rightly picked up on the stupidity and uselessness of this statement
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 3 April 2013 15:42 (1 month ago) Permalink