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

Shortly after the midterm elections, the New York Times’ David Brooks insisted that Republicans were feeling “modest and cautious.” They’re “sober,” Brooks said, adding that the GOP wouldn’t “overreach.” Republican leaders, Brooks assured readers, were “prepared to take what they can get, even if it’s not always what they would like.”

Which is exactly why Dems shouldn't be rushing to praise his judgement now that he's singing their tune

He shouldn't be even given legitimacy, but since he's on NPR and PBS and in the NY Times and book stores, some Dems jumped favorably on his recent comments attacking Republicans so they can say "look even David Brooks says they're crazy"

when you praise the judgement of someone you have always lambasted for having terrible judgement, what does that say about your judgement?

I agree with you if people are praising him. But I also think that some people on the Rolling US politics thread who may have referred to his more recent comments realize that Brooks is an idiot, even while they quote him. Some people may be quoting him but not praising him.

I think Obama should refer to Reagan raising taxes as part of a debt deal as a debate strategy in the current mess, even if I despise Reagan.

http://matthias.tanaya.net/Images/2009/090303-brooks.jpg

When he tries to be a high-brow Tom Friedman he also can be so annoying:

"These three groups — bankers, Democratic Keynesians and staunch Republicans — have one thing in common: They all believe they have identified the magic lever.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/87035/why-do-paul-krugman-and-david-brooks-hate-each-other

I'd be surprised if krugman didn't hate brooks but you don't need to imagine some silly grudge about a magazine cover to understand why.

Shortly after the midterm elections, the New York Times’ David Brooks insisted that Republicans were feeling “modest and cautious.” They’re “sober,” Brooks said, adding that the GOP wouldn’t “overreach.” Republican leaders, Brooks assured readers, were “prepared to take what they can get, even if it’s not always what they would like.”

― curmudgeon, Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:42 AM (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

haha

they need to make a slapstick comedy based on david brooks life where this random mr. bean type falls his way up to prestigious journalist positions

http://i54.tinypic.com/2rrmjnq.jpg

haha

probably not going to watch this, but http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/war-of-the-rose/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/opinion/brooks-obama-rejects-obamaism.html

We’re not going to simplify the tax code, but by God Obama’s going to raise taxes on rich people who give to charity! We’ve got to do something to reduce the awful philanthropy surplus plaguing this country!

Oh, pleeez.

Pareene:

Brooks goes on to write that Obama is "sounding like the Al Gore for president campaign, but without the earth tones" and that his Monday address was "the kind of speech that sounded better when Ted Kennedy was delivering it."

This suggests that Obama is now embracing the ideologically polarizing rhetoric of losing national candidates -- which is very deceptive. He conveniently doesn't note that Obama is also sounding like ... candidate Obama, who (as Brooks' colleague John Harwood explained on Monday) addressed the issue of income inequality head-on while running for president. That the highest-earning 20 percent of Americans had seen their share of pretax income balloon by more than 50 percent between 1979 and 2007, Harwood wrote, "drove (Obama's) campaign platform on taxes and still drives his policy in the White House."

not pareene, the other dude

By Steve Kornacki

parnee by steve kornacki, available at finer blogs everywhere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries

The world's most charitable countries, for the purposes of this page, give the most money to help the needy of their societies and others through public (government) donations . . . the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development also lists countries by the amount of money they give as a percentage of their gross national income. The list includes international giving through official channels that qualify as Official Development Assistance, and national charitable giving. This list is as follows:

1. Sweden – 1.12%
2. Norway – 1.06%
3. Luxembourg – 1.04%
4. Pakistan – 1.00%
5. Denmark – 0.88%
6. Netherlands – 0.82%
7. Belgium – 0.55%
8. Finland – 0.54%
9. Ireland – 0.54%
10. United Kingdom – 0.52%
11. France- 0.47%
12. Spain – 0.46%
13. Switzerland – 0.45%
14. Germany – 0.35%
15. Canada – 0.30%
16. Austria – 0.30%
17. Australia – 0.29%
18. New Zealand – 0.28%
19. Portugal – 0.23%
20. United States – 0.21%
21. Greece – 0.19%
22. Japan – 0.18%
23. Italy – 0.16%
24. South Korea – 0.10%

Fuck David Brooks.

http://i.imgur.com/ScFv6.jpg

wont you give to help fuck david brooks today

Nothing makes David Brooks angrier than attacks on the top 1%. He wants you to believe that the mushy-headed DLC-like proposal by Matt Miller for a centrist 3rd party(that offers a bunch of conservative ideas and a few moderate Liberal ones) is better than OWS

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/opinion/the-milquetoast-radicals.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

Don’t be fooled by the clichés of protest movements past. The most radical people today are the ones that look the most boring. It’s not about declaring war on some nefarious elite. It’s about changing behavior from top to bottom. Let’s occupy ourselves.

A group that divides the world between the pure 99 percent and the evil 1 percent will have nothing to say about education reform, Medicare reform, tax reform, wage stagnation or polarization.

UH

Notice the revolting way in which he drops a smear and moves on:

Take the Occupy Wall Street movement. This uprising was sparked by the magazine Adbusters, previously best known for the 2004 essay, “Why Won’t Anyone Say They Are Jewish?” — an investigative report that identified some of the most influential Jews in America and their nefarious grip on policy.

Both of those quotes make little sense. Plus he says:

The policy proposals that have been floating around the Occupy Wall Street movement — a financial transfer tax, forgiveness for student loans — are marginal.

But he strongly endorses Miller's call to "raise capital requirements for banks"

"Let’s occupy ourselves" <--- stirring

lol

"The most radical people today are the ones that look the most boring."

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/09/16/opinion/Brooks_New/Brooks_New-articleInline.jpg

tbf, Adbusters did publish a pretty anti-semitic article from the EIC of the magazine and then defended it the next issue. i don't know what that has to do with OWS except to try and delegitimize it, but I think being wary of Adbuster activity is appropriate reaction

adbusters and david brooks deserve each other

Krugman -

I read David Brooks citing the Tax Foundation this morning, and I thought he must have misread them. They couldn’t possibly have compared one year’s take from higher taxes on the rich with the total stock of debt, could they? They can’t possibly be that stupid, or think that their readers are that stupid, can they?

Yes they did. They actually find that their version of the “Buffett rule” would collect $120 billion a year, which is a seriously significant sum. But they try to make it look small by comparing one year’s revenue with the total debt outstanding.

lol what dicks

david brooks can you speak at my teach in why because you look boring

Foreign tourists are coming up to me on the streets and asking, “David, you have so many different kinds of inequality in your country. How can I tell which are socially acceptable and which are not?”

This is an excellent question. I will provide you with a guide to the American inequality map to help you avoid embarrassment.

he's got the Nordlinger-esque faux-naif bit down pat.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_11/david_brooks_vs_david_brooks033360.php

Because we were all waiting for David Brooks to weigh in on Paterno

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/opinion/brooks-lets-all-feel-superior.html?src=recg

We live in a society oriented around our inner wonderfulness.

a sentence like this could only have been written by someone who thinks of himself as utterly not wonderful inside.

which would be uncharacteristically perceptive of him.

guys why did i just start arguing on facebook with somebody who endorsed this column? why?

back away slowly

haha this column is such a mess

Over the course of history — during the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide or the street beatings that happen in American neighborhoods — the same pattern has emerged. Many people do not intervene. Very often they see but they don’t see.

lol none of these things are at all like what happened

Even in cases where people consciously register some offense, they still often don’t intervene. In research done at Penn State and published in 1999, students were asked if they would make a stink if someone made a sexist remark in their presence. Half said yes. When researchers arranged for that to happen, only 16 percent protested.

In another experiment at a different school, 68 percent of students insisted they would refuse to answer if they were asked offensive questions during a job interview. But none actually objected when asked questions like, “Do you think it is appropriate for women to wear bras to work?”

because when someone makes a sexist comment a child gets raped

i wouldve stopped genocides and hypothetical generic events that threaten my own physical well being but i didnt want to harsh the good vibes

The Kitty Genovese case from the ’60s is mostly apocryphal, but hundreds of other cases are not.

there is a famously untrue story, dont u feel guilty now

In centuries past, people built moral systems that acknowledged this weakness. These systems emphasized our sinfulness. They reminded people of the evil within themselves. Life was seen as an inner struggle against the selfish forces inside. These vocabularies made people aware of how their weaknesses manifested themselves and how to exercise discipline over them. These systems gave people categories with which to process savagery and scripts to follow when they confronted it. They helped people make moral judgments and hold people responsible amidst our frailties.

a time when nothing bad ever happened surely, like... THE HOLOCAUST

That was the proper question after Abu Ghraib, Madoff, the Wall Street follies and a thousand other scandals. But it’s a question this society has a hard time asking because the most seductive evasion is the one that leads us to deny the underside of our own nature.

dood all these things were allowed to happen because people in power had a vested interest in having them happen, not because some guy thought he was wonderful

These systems emphasized our sinfulness. They reminded people of the evil within themselves. Life was seen as an inner struggle against the selfish forces inside.

yeah this was really awesome everyone felt frightened guilty and miserable all the time! if only we could bring that back!

His analogies don't clarify the context, and while a few of the examples he mentions are true, they don't justify his larger point. Maybe he should go back to his defense of protecting the 1 %, and justifying entitlement cuts. Oy.

but people brimming terrified self loathing never do anything bad!

guys why did i just start arguing on facebook with somebody who endorsed this column? why?

― horseshoe, Wednesday, November 16, 2011 1:06 AM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

naw i fully support calling people on such obvs bullshit, otherwise youre as bad as hitler