I always knew David Brooks was an asshole ....

posted this in the other thread, grudging goldberg otm

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-03/i-like-david-brooks-have-smoked-marijuana.html

the first half of the brooks column actually wasn't horrible imo lol

Paul Krugman is off today.

this was a pretty cruel joke by the NYT editors tho, touché

Another mandatory feature of the marijuana-themed column is the Current Use Statement, because it is morally acceptable to have been a stupid kid, but it is apparently less acceptable to be a stupid adult. So: I haven’t touched marijuana in 25 years.

Who will be the most surprising pundit to weigh in w/ their current epic marijuana use? Krauthammer?

Read

I don’t drink alcohol very much at all, because I don’t like it -- what it does to me, and what it does to society.

the fuck outta here with this hit

*shit

all these pundits pop mad pills #knowledge

http://twitter.com/leyawn/status/419133339828629504/photo/1

I don't mean to ask the stupid obvious question here, but what exactly has marijuana done to 'society'?

its a lesser pleasure

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/counter_narrative/2014/01/david_brooks_smoking_pot_should_black_kids_pay_for_his_pothead_sins.html

He needs to have a couple beers and relax

lol

The emergence of boutique hotels reflects a broader trend toward a more experientially rich commercial world.

It seems as if there is an endless supply of middle-class consumers who have boutique identities and aspirations, especially among people in their 20s. Consumers now use hotels differently. They bring their laptops down to the lobby rather than working in their rooms. Fewer people bother to unpack their bags. Therefore, room desks and closets are less important, but having a happening lobby scene is more important. People need a civic space where they can have their contiguous but individualized iPad experiences.

Boutique hotels are, on one level, kind of ridiculous. They are almost invariably too dark throughout, making it hard to read. The bed is often too low. The bathroom door is sometimes a flimsy sliding shutter, sacrificing privacy for style.

But they do exemplify a shift in the consumer market, which you might call the shift from the lima bean economy to the edamame economy

Ha ha. I saw that headline but have not yet forced myself to read the column.

This was kinda funny:

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2014/01/03/ruth-marcus-and-david-brooks-smoke-pot-a-play-in-one-act/

^^ world needed these insights

david brooks reminds me of that quote from good morning america: "You are in more dire need of a blow job than any white man in history"

A basic rule of happiness is don’t buy things; buy experiences.

this might be the paradigmatic Brooks column

did anything prompt this column? did dave leave the house or something?

he left his Manhattan penethouse, crossed the street, entered boutique hotel lobby, ordered gimlet.

Consumers have been educated by the market and now the median level of cultural competence is much higher.

well thank god

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/counter_narrative/2014/01/david_brooks_smoking_pot_should_black_kids_pay_for_his_pothead_sins.html

freedom to make mistakes as a young person is probably one of the biggest and most underrated advantages of being affluent in this country (or, conversely, lack of freedom to do so is one of the biggest setbacks of being poor in this country).

good morning america's gotten pretty racy lately

good morning america: the xxx parody!

LOLLLLLLLL

whoops

(vietnam, obvs)

A basic rule of happiness is don’t buy things; buy experiences.

cf. "highest pleasures" "deeper sources of happiness"

flashbacks xp

Brooks was a former marijuana smoker, but quit after a traumatic event during English class. [42]

A basic rule of happiness is don’t buy things; buy experiences.

#livelikesteve

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/opinion/brooks-the-inequality-problem.html?ref=davidbrooks&_r=2

Asshole

David Brooks columns are just like blah blah blah to me at this point

"hi i'm david brooks and i've thought a lot about poverty in the last couple of hours"

Like as soon as someone says "because of the 'Superstar Effect'" is when I start stuffing them into the trunk of my car while they are still talking

"look, it's just the way things are"

knew this was gonna come down to the fraying social fabric

jobs for young men

If you have a primitive zero-sum mentality then you assume growing affluence for the rich must somehow be causing the immobility of the poor, but, in reality, the two sets of problems are different, and it does no good to lump them together and call them “inequality.”

taking this seriously for a sec, it DOES make sense to lump them together. doing anything to improve the position of the poor requires breaking the political power of the rich, since their party (or parties, hi morbs!) stands in the way.

assortative mating

superstar effect mating wink wink

these two aspects of the economy are totally unrelated why cant you seeeeee it is because ur so frayed out

I wonder how that's going for Brooks post-divorce, the assortative mating thing

lot of assorted mating around my way dave, come hang out. be cool tho, people smoke.

"fraying of the social fabric" oh noes slatternly teen wenches are allowing the fabric to fray by having babies!

(*teens are having fewer babies than they have in forty years)

why let the facts get in the way of airy and heavily loaded generalisations about "social fabric"?

theres no reason to when you think about it and are smart and reasonable and a horrific nerd