RIP David Brooks

yes came here to post that

he's either a liar or very very stupid

in which albert burnenko proposes that brooks sent his exwife a dick pic and is swimming in existential despair http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/i-dont-think-david-brooks-is-okay-you-guys-1702674607/+AlbertBurneko

ok irl at this

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--na-ypttb--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/1242070180469282708.jpg

good overview

that krugman column linked above has its heart in the right place, but sentences like these make me cringe more than a little:

Take, for example, issues of health and mortality. Many people have pointed out that there are a number of black neighborhoods in Baltimore where life expectancy compares unfavorably with impoverished Third World nations. But what’s really striking on a national basis is the way class disparities in death rates have been soaring even among whites.

it's the phrase But what’s really striking that rankles. as if it's a competition between class and race! "yeah, i know racial disparities are profound, but what's really striking..."

also:

It has been disheartening to see some commentators still writing as if poverty were simply a matter of values, as if the poor just mysteriously make bad choices and all would be well if they adopted middle-class values. Maybe, just maybe, that was a sustainable argument four decades ago,

no, that was never a "sustainable" argument in re. structural poverty.

i mean krugman wants to make this all about the recent increase in inequality and all that portends, but in doing so he kind of hand-waves away some stuff that he really shouldn't be...

no, that was never a "sustainable" argument in re. structural poverty

yeah this bothered me too when I read it. as if there were not huge structural reasons for poverty 4 decades ago - "previous generations of poors were just bad decision makers" is not a historically valid argument imo.

Krugman doesn't write felicitous prose. He concedes that his wife severely edits him.

Fortunately to Brooks every generation of poors made bad decisions

at least previous generations of poors had elder sages to let them know what bad decisions they were making

undeserving poors will always be with us

it's the phrase But what’s really striking that rankles. as if it's a competition between class and race! "yeah, i know racial disparities are profound, but what's really striking..."

It IS a competition between - not class and race - but class and identity politics - in the competition for redress. Lobbing little victories toward the aims of identity politics is easy. Fixing class inequality is hard and is unlikely to make the Wall Street money masters happy.

Racial inequality only exacerbated by class inequality, obviously.

FP

flag this, pal

discussions are made so much more interesting with amateur football refs running around throwing hankies at minor dissents

well there's a whole much more interesting discussion happening on the 'privilege as a meme' thread about this subject

but here's a preview: you're wrong

Oh there's always action on the racism, sexism, privilege threads. But look at how quiet the class-related threads are.

Do you actually disagree that racial inequality is exacerbated by class inequality? What exactly is so threatening about this notion?

Can people have more than one political identity at a time?

Because a rise in good ol' cross-the-boundaries class consciousness would be kind of helpful right now --- I believe I heard West and Smiley talking about economic commonalities and shared conditions, for example. It's certainly what I'm talking about.

And it puts the current "left" to sleep.

Do you actually disagree that racial inequality is exacerbated by class inequality? What exactly is so threatening about this notion?

It does not seem like that is what you were saying. You seemed to be dismissing concerns about racial inequality. Bad cops are not quizzing African-Americans about their class status

It IS a competition between - not class and race - but class and identity politics - in the competition for redress.

― Vic Perry, Thursday, May 7, 2015 7:10 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is a thread for making fun of david brooks btw, he wrote a love letter to the ruling class today http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/opinion/mothers-and-presidents.html

eye have already been rolled at Jacobin class articles on the privilege thread so VP's views are clearly in need of flagging

happy Mother's Day!

If I like Barbara Bush, do I hate my mother?

was kinda shocked at him coming right out and saying society exists at the begining there tbh

he doesn't love Thatcher THAT much

its like the core conservative belief, he never wouldve ceded that much ground to left a couple years ago

"According to some surveys, 90 percent of businesses around the world are family-operated businesses."

for real?

eye have already been rolled at Jacobin class articles on the privilege thread so VP's views are clearly in need of flagging

― Is It Any Wonder I'm Not the (President Keyes), Friday, 8 May 2015 14:44 (1 hour ago) Permalink

This guys been on a roll lately

for real?

yes only 10% of business-owners don't have families

brontes and amises in novel writing

Some mothers — and some fathers, husbands and wives — shape their kin with extraordinary power, and in certain directions.

you know the ones im talking about: east, southeast, south by southeast

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

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

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.

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

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.

xxp

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

corporations are families, hello

Business has a right to children

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

to da mob (family)

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

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinion/robert-redford-on-david-brooks.html?src=recg&_r=0

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.

http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/Movies/PhotoG/robert-redford-tom-cruise-2007-14413.jpg

would pay to see cruise as a hobbit

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

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

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/19/article-2344324-0A062415000005DC-666_306x504.jpg