WE DID IT! Thanks everybody!

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

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (886 of them)
well you can't deny that Roe v. Wade has been a flashpoint for contention, strife, and anger ever since.

Yes, he has a point there, but his argument is no different than arguing against Blacks & Women getting the right to vote. We could very well be having the same contention over many other subjects. (“When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.” -Lott)

diedre mousedropping (Dave225), Thursday, 21 April 2005 13:50 (twelve years ago) Permalink

milo, are you referring to Steve Leavitt and Steve Landsburg? Their economics are generally considered "sound" by other economists (Leavitt won the John Bates Clark medal a few years ago, for whatever that happens to be worth, though Landsburg came in for considerable abuse when he was writing "Everyday Economics" for Slate) and folks go all gooey about them because they write about drug dealers, etc.

But as near as I can tell they are basically a couple of big fat neocons with some gee-whiz mathematical gizmos.

rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Thursday, 21 April 2005 14:04 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Flashpoints can be helpful, eg John Brown and the Civil War.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 21 April 2005 14:07 (twelve years ago) Permalink

yeah, thank god that such public strife and invective was never around before the ruling, much less with a war that had been going for for 7+ years by that point...

kingfish, Thursday, 21 April 2005 15:08 (twelve years ago) Permalink

that's it, Steven Levitt, new book Freakonomics

The very little I've read makes your view look spot on to me with a little PJ O'Rourke BS mixed in for color.

milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Thursday, 21 April 2005 15:12 (twelve years ago) Permalink

It's a pretty stupid article. Brooks is a very stupid person.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 21 April 2005 15:13 (twelve years ago) Permalink

ie ignore the link between poverty and crime, instead cheer on poor folks aborting their criminal progeny, etc.


gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 21 April 2005 15:14 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Shorter Brooks: Can we please just cater to the back of the parade so that Wepublicans and Democwats can go back to pretending to like each other at cocktail parties?

rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Thursday, 21 April 2005 15:28 (twelve years ago) Permalink

new book

old idea

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 21 April 2005 15:32 (twelve years ago) Permalink

An old idea that has gotten no better with time and the introduction of calculus.

rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Thursday, 21 April 2005 15:33 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Can people please stop reading anything David Brooks writes? He's a complete and utter shit-for-brains. He's like the most annoying pundit in America. Alex in SF on point.

I think it would be a lot more interesting to have a thread on Steven Levitt, FWIW.

TOMBOT, Thursday, 21 April 2005 16:01 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I'd be more curious about him too, actually.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 21 April 2005 16:02 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Are we so much the Bell-Curve-police that we can't distinguish between "poor folks aborting their criminal progeny" and "folks, many of whom are poor, aborting their unwanted and likely to be unloved and opportunity-less progeny"?

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 21 April 2005 16:03 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Links to Levitt's working papers:

rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Thursday, 21 April 2005 16:05 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I don't think the distinction entirely changes the discomfort we're talking about G -- you're right about the "unwanted" part, but Milo's talking more about the "opportunity-less."

David Brooks is way way too harmless and bumbling to ever seem like much of an "asshole." I mean, this is a guy who spent the fall getting regularly PWNED by Mark Shields, of all people. On PBS. Every now and then he dredges up a sentence that can almost pretend to be incendiary, but for the most part he's a total softy, a socially-"bobo" centrist who seems almost geezery and apologetic about his actual geek-conservatism. He's like if Richard Roeper grew up Bush.

nabiscothingy, Thursday, 21 April 2005 16:41 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I'm trying to decide which out of Richard Roeper or David Brooks is the stupidest now. Fuck this is a mindbender.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 21 April 2005 16:44 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Milo's talking more about the "opportunity-less."

all of whom are criminals, obv. one factor may be sufficient, but the combination seems to increase the likelihood.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 21 April 2005 16:46 (twelve years ago) Permalink

but, as i said at the first, i'm not sure at all what milo's saying. he seems to be objecting to his own point.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 21 April 2005 16:47 (twelve years ago) Permalink

The thing that really makes the most uncomfortable about Levitt's thesis regarding abortion and crime rates is that it seems to confuse correlation with causation. (And given his selective sampling I'm not sure about the correlation part, either).

rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Thursday, 21 April 2005 16:51 (twelve years ago) Permalink

All of Levitt's research seems fascinating to me, except the one paper about the NFL betting, which is kind of a "well duh" to me. I suppose depending on your viewpoints and experience a lot of his other research might seem "well duh" to other people but I love this kind of shit, it strikes me that he's actually doing a sort of metrics-based anthropology rather than economics with most of it. I'm always a sucker for that.

TOMBOT, Thursday, 21 April 2005 16:59 (twelve years ago) Permalink

The discomfort is that it makes it seem like Roe v Wade is some kind of twisted eugenics experiment, which it isn't. It treads very close to a lot of scary lines people don't like to talk about.

TOMBOT, Thursday, 21 April 2005 17:00 (twelve years ago) Permalink

He's no doubt fascinating to read, but it's the reliability of Levitt's models that concerns me. Econometrics does a generally crappy job performing what should be relatively simple tasks (at least within the field), such as forecasting general trends in consumer inflation or payroll employment. I'm not sure how far I should trust it to make sense of complex phenomena over extended time series, like changes in crime rates due to Roe V. Wade.

rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Thursday, 21 April 2005 17:05 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I'm objecting to the specious reasoning, gabbneb. Higher rates of abortion and lower rates of crime - which is extrapolated to the 'poor folks be robbing' mentioned first - do not, in any way, share causality. Levitt's model is based on statewide crime figures and doesn't seem to account for the infinite number of variables present. He's referring primarily to 'blue states' - where you've got less social control (easier access to abortion) and urban poverty. You don't think that maybe the rise and end of the crack epidemic, urban renewal initiatives, a decade of relative prosperity, Giuliani-like crime programs etc. might, just maybe, had a wee something

Whereas the red states - coincidentally restricted in abortion - have more rural poverty. The rural poor didn't have as many alleviating social changes over the past decade or two. So is it any shock, say, that their rates of drug abuse (crime) stayed steady or rose?

Then there's also have the other, more disturbing facet of the reasoning (as nabisco alluded to) - lower crime is good, crime rates are highest among the poor, abortion lowers crime rates - aborting the poor lowers crime and is therefore good. It makes it easier, even unconsciously, to dehumanize and criminalize the poor.

My big problem problem with Levitt (maybe his academic research is better, but his pop-cult economics is what I've seen) is that it extrapolates a great deal from very little and then makes broad, ill-informed pronouncements from the data. ie it's the type of shit that belongs in a humor book or PJ O'Rourke column.

milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Thursday, 21 April 2005 19:14 (twelve years ago) Permalink

eight months pass...
Rape David Brooks to Save America.

elmo, patron saint of nausea (allocryptic), Thursday, 22 December 2005 17:29 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Can someone please post the text from his column?

giboyeux (skowly), Thursday, 22 December 2005 17:45 (eleven years ago) Permalink

David Brooks is one of those bright, curious, imaginative people who doesn't have a clue about how his naievity, shortcomings, weaknesses and blind spots affect the legitimacy of his premature and often poorly informed conclusions. These traits naturally make him a leading editorial columnist.

Aimless (Aimless), Thursday, 22 December 2005 18:13 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Wait, milo, to go back in the way back machine now, did you actually read Levitt's book? Because that's not what he's saying at all. Your mention of Giuliani's programs as if he doesn't delve into those and why they ultimately might not be as effective as people think is what spurred me to ask the question. I don't have the book in front of me (or indeed, anywhere else near me, I borrowed it off someone and had to return it), but I don't think his point was KILL THE POOR or some other neocon nudge nudge nonsense. It rather more comes across as the correlation between abortion rising versus crime declining is just as likely a cause as any of the other things people like to go on about. It's an exercise in making the point that most of the social programs/Giuliani's regime that actually get instituted in urban areas are bullshit and don't actually do anything.

Everyone loves to quote the "abortion lowers crime" blurb but no one seems bothered to actually read what the man wrote in his book.

Fuck David Brooks, why are we talking about him? Also yeah can people start reposting NYT articles? I refuse to BUY a David Goddamn Brooks article.

Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Thursday, 22 December 2005 18:24 (eleven years ago) Permalink

When Big Brother Is You
Let's play "You're the President." Let's put you in the Oval Office and see what kind of decisions you make in real-world circumstances.

Because you are president, you are briefed each day on terrorist threats to this country. These briefings are as psychologically intense as an episode of "24," with descriptions of specific bad guys and their activities.

This has had a cumulative effect on your psychology. While many of your fellow citizens have relaxed as 9/11 has faded into history, you don't have that luxury. Your briefings, and some terrifying false alarms that haven't been made public, keep you in a perpetual state of high alert.

You know that one of the few advantages we have over the terrorists is technological superiority. You are damned sure you are going to use every geek, every computer program and every surveillance technique at your disposal to prevent a future attack. You have inherited the FISA process to regulate this intelligence gathering. It's a pretty good process. FISA judges usually issue warrants quickly and, when appropriate, retroactively.

But the FISA process has shortcomings. First, it's predicated on a division between foreign and domestic activity that has been rendered obsolete by today's mobile communications methods. Second, the process still involves some cumbersome paperwork and bureaucratic foot-dragging. Finally, the case-by-case FISA method is ill suited to the new information-gathering technologies, which include things like automated systems that troll through vast amounts of data looking for patterns, voices and chains of contacts.

Over time you've become convinced that these new technologies, which are run by National Security Agency professionals and shielded from political influence, help save lives. You've seen that these new surveillance techniques helped foil an attack on the Brooklyn Bridge and bombing assaults in Britain. The question is, How do you regulate the new procedures to protect liberties?

Your aides present you with three options. First, you can ask Congress to rewrite the FISA law to keep pace with the new technologies. This has some drawbacks. How exactly do you write a law to cope with this fast-changing information war? Even if you could set up a procedure to get warrant requests to a judge, how would that judge be able to tell which of the thousands of possible information nodes is worth looking into, or which belongs to a U.S. citizen? Swamped in the data-fog, the courts would just become meaningless rubber-stamps. Finally, it's likely that some member of Congress would leak details of the program during the legislative process, thus destroying it.

Your second option is to avoid Congress and set up a self-policing mechanism using the Justice Department and the N.S.A.'s inspector general. This option, too, has drawbacks. First, it's legally dubious. Second, it's quite possible that some intelligence bureaucrat will leak information about the programs, especially if he or she hopes to swing a presidential election against you. Third, if details do come out and Congressional leaders learn you went around them, there will be blowback that will not only destroy the program, but will also lead to more restrictions on executive power.

Your third option is informal Congressional oversight. You could pull a few senior members of Congress into your office and you could say: "Look, given the fast-moving nature of this conflict, there is no way we can codify rules about what is permissible and impermissible. Instead we will create a social contract. I'll trust you by telling you everything we are doing to combat terror. You'll trust me enough to give me the flexibility I need to keep the country safe. If we have disagreements, we will work them out in private."

These are your three options, Mr. President, and these are essentially the three options George Bush faced a few years ago. (He chose Option 2.) But before you decide, let me tell you one more thing: Options 1 and 2 won't work, and Option 3 is impossible.

Options 1 and 2 won't work because they lead to legalistic rigidities and leaks that will destroy the program. Option 3 is impossible because it requires trust. It requires that the president and the Congressional leaders trust one another. It requires Democrats and Republicans to trust one another. We don't have that kind of trust in America today.

That leaves you with Option 4: Face the fact that we will not be using our best technology to monitor the communications of known terrorists. Face the fact that the odds of an attack on America just went up.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 22 December 2005 18:39 (eleven years ago) Permalink

What a jerk.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 22 December 2005 18:41 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I like how "trust" is some silly fantasy.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 22 December 2005 18:45 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I can look at him for 2 seconds on Lehrer before wanting to take his lunch money. So meh.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 22 December 2005 18:45 (eleven years ago) Permalink

It's touching, this conservative faith in the wisdom and good intentions of Big Government.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 22 December 2005 18:49 (eleven years ago) Permalink


don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 22 December 2005 18:51 (eleven years ago) Permalink

God, I wish you hadn't posted that.
How much does THAT stupid piece of shit get paid?
Fire HIM. Retroactively.

TOMBOT, Thursday, 22 December 2005 18:53 (eleven years ago) Permalink

First, it's predicated on a division between foreign and domestic activity that has been rendered obsolete by today's mobile communications methods.

these "cellular" "telephones" represent a paradigm shift that our founders never intended

älänbänänä (alanbanana), Thursday, 22 December 2005 18:59 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I love how the main drawback to all three stupid ideas is that they're stupid and illegal and bullshit, and thus will be destroyed whenever the public gets wind of them. Damned public! Fuck them!

TOMBOT, Thursday, 22 December 2005 19:00 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Yeah alan don't you know electronics and digital transistorized integrated circuits have made our concepts of "citizenship" and "rights" totally obsolete?

TOMBOT, Thursday, 22 December 2005 19:01 (eleven years ago) Permalink

"God, I wish you hadn't posted that."

Sorry everyone else asked for it. :(

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 22 December 2005 19:18 (eleven years ago) Permalink

why not just put cameras in every room in every building in america? we have the technology! it would prevent attacks right?


msp (mspa), Thursday, 22 December 2005 20:36 (eleven years ago) Permalink

These briefings are as psychologically intense as an episode of "24," with descriptions of specific bad guys and their activities.

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 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Can I mention how fucking sick I am of "24" being used to justify Bush policy? I've never seen the show, but I fucking hate it.

elmo, patron saint of nausea (allocryptic), Thursday, 22 December 2005 20:53 (eleven years ago) Permalink

it's for kids.

hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 22 December 2005 21:01 (eleven years ago) Permalink

seven months pass...
from Chris Mathews:

“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 (eleven years ago) Permalink

eleven months pass...

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."


Martin Van Burne, Monday, 23 July 2007 14:51 (ten 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 (ten 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 (ten 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 (ten years ago) Permalink


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 (ten 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 (ten 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 (ten years ago) Permalink

How do you come up with a phrase like "excessive realism" and not see the deep absurdity?

jmm, Saturday, 18 July 2015 00:18 (two years ago) Permalink


― resulting post (rogermexico.), Saturday, June 27, 2015

resulting post (rogermexico.), Saturday, 18 July 2015 00:58 (two years ago) Permalink


the late great, Saturday, 18 July 2015 00:59 (two years ago) Permalink

reading the Coates book right now...it is so good.

horseshoe, Saturday, 18 July 2015 01:02 (two years ago) Permalink

horseshoe, it is good to see your posts itt

not a garbageman, i am garbage, man (m bison), Saturday, 18 July 2015 02:51 (two years ago) Permalink

<3 m bise

horseshoe, Saturday, 18 July 2015 02:57 (two years ago) Permalink

Man "excessive realism" ought to be the title of Coates' next book!

tylerw, Saturday, 18 July 2015 03:40 (two years ago) Permalink

otm, essay comp imo

difficult listening hour, Saturday, 18 July 2015 04:01 (two years ago) Permalink

omg the beautiful struggle has a pulp-fantasy-style map of baltimore in the front

difficult listening hour, Saturday, 18 July 2015 05:01 (two years ago) Permalink

wasn't he going to write a book about the civil war too? almost can't imagine how awesome that would be.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Saturday, 18 July 2015 05:03 (two years ago) Permalink

As a family man, he was surprisingly relaxed and affectionate. We think of him as a man of marble, but he loved having his kids jump into bed with him and tickle his feet. With his wife’s loving cooperation, he could write witty and even saucy letters to other women. He was devout in his faith, a gifted watercolorist, a lover of animals and a charming conversationalist.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 18 July 2015 05:06 (two years ago) Permalink

alas poor robert

mookieproof, Saturday, 18 July 2015 05:15 (two years ago) Permalink

three months pass...


mookieproof, Friday, 13 November 2015 20:15 (one year ago) Permalink

I endured shambolic security lines, inexplicable delays and a four-hour layover sitting on the floor of the Casablanca airport, thinking it was nothing like the movie.

which movie? the one about people delayed in their departure from casablanca?

denies the existence of dark matter (difficult listening hour), Friday, 13 November 2015 20:37 (one year ago) Permalink

Most straightforward and honest David Brooks writing ever. Maybe he just had an enema.

on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Friday, 13 November 2015 21:26 (one year ago) Permalink

the little cubes of Turkish Delight that tasted as good as the kind gobbled by Edmund in the C.S. Lewis classic.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 13 November 2015 21:36 (one year ago) Permalink

david brooks has forgotten that book, tho he rereads the screwtape letters every christmas.

denies the existence of dark matter (difficult listening hour), Friday, 13 November 2015 21:57 (one year ago) Permalink

he screws himself every xmas

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 13 November 2015 22:03 (one year ago) Permalink

and tapes it

Capitalism Is A Death Cult And Science Is A Whore (GOTT PUNCH II HAWKWINDZ), Saturday, 14 November 2015 00:33 (one year ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

His instinct pointed him to pink but he was able to correct himself and choose blue.

on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Friday, 4 December 2015 15:21 (one year ago) Permalink

i don't get the point DB is making there and i don't get what sonny bunch means re: trump either

goole, Friday, 4 December 2015 17:10 (one year ago) Permalink

And I don't know what to do /
Now that pink has turned to blue

Professor Goodfeels (kingfish), Friday, 4 December 2015 17:13 (one year ago) Permalink

I strongly suspect he did a search and replace changing "orange" to "pink" between the first and second drafts of that column.

the top man in the language department (誤訳侮辱), Friday, 4 December 2015 17:42 (one year ago) Permalink

i don't get the point DB is making there and i don't get what sonny bunch means re: trump either

― goole, Friday, December 4, 2015 5:10 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

brooks goes on to argue that, like the pink rug, trump is the loud, appealing & fun first instinct for the republican electorate--but really, they should focus on more of a "blue rug" candidate that they can live with, like jeb bush.

sonny bunches of oats then jokes about the persuasive power of a rug shopping metaphor for a trump voter

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 4 December 2015 22:11 (one year ago) Permalink

I strongly suspect he did a search and replace changing "orange" to "pink" between the first and second drafts of that column.

― the top man in the language department (誤訳侮辱), Friday, December 4, 2015 5:42 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

and "teal" to "blue"

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 4 December 2015 22:12 (one year ago) Permalink

wait -- how can anyone or anything be "subtler and more prosaic"?

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 4 December 2015 22:13 (one year ago) Permalink

"you'll tire of the electric vibrancy!" has gotta be the weakest antifascist appeal in the history of mass politics

denies the existence of dark matter (difficult listening hour), Friday, 4 December 2015 22:28 (one year ago) Permalink


BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 4 December 2015 22:38 (one year ago) Permalink

or is he still talking about his marriage?

Larry Elleison (rogermexico.), Friday, 4 December 2015 23:31 (one year ago) Permalink

he totally is. he thought he wanted the eye-catching pink! then too late, he realized all along, he was happy with the blue. Now the electric, vibrant option is telling him to throw out all his furniture and frankly, why can't you move into a cooler neighborhood

El Tomboto, Saturday, 5 December 2015 00:58 (one year ago) Permalink

This is subtle dog whistling by Brooks. 'Pink' codes as 'red' as in red states and conservative republicanism, while 'blue' codes as blue states and democratic allegiance. He's signaling he is a RINO.

Aimless, Saturday, 5 December 2015 01:45 (one year ago) Permalink

Two rugs diverged on a floor, and I
I bought the rug that popped my eye
Christ, I'm an asshole

Guayaquil (eephus!), Saturday, 5 December 2015 05:31 (one year ago) Permalink

nytimes a social experiment in what happens when all your editorial columnists are self-clowning ovens

μpright mammal (mh), Saturday, 5 December 2015 05:39 (one year ago) Permalink

the soft pink truth

an emotionally withholding exterminator (m coleman), Saturday, 5 December 2015 14:14 (one year ago) Permalink

I read this yesterday and was so happy i paid $2.50 for the paper

skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 5 December 2015 15:56 (one year ago) Permalink


BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 9 December 2015 17:07 (one year ago) Permalink

lol eephus

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 9 December 2015 17:08 (one year ago) Permalink

two months pass...

It's 2 a.m. The bar is closing. Republicans have had a series of strong and nasty Trump cocktails. Suddenly Ted Cruz is beginning to look kind of attractive. At least he's sort of predictable, and he doesn't talk about his sexual organs in presidential debates!

@dick_nixon 3h
Conrad spoke two languages before English, you know. David Brooks ought to be boiled in oil for writing like this.

we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 16:47 (one year ago) Permalink


Οὖτις, Tuesday, 8 March 2016 16:49 (one year ago) Permalink

Nixon didn't speak English either.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 17:05 (one year ago) Permalink

That's a pretty nonsensical metaphor.

on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 17:12 (one year ago) Permalink

one year passes...

oh he's really outdone himself with this one


Larry Elleison (rogermexico.), Sunday, 13 August 2017 16:42 (two months ago) Permalink

on pins and needles waiting for his Charlottesville column

the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 13 August 2017 17:46 (two months ago) Permalink

Ugh, the very thought makes me want to step off a bridge.

horseshoe, Sunday, 13 August 2017 18:04 (two months ago) Permalink

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