Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
We're Ready to Apologize
We notice that Dave is still "on vacation." Sounds to us like he's still stung at having been called out over his paean to Congress.
However, in light of his guest columnist's trenchant piece on the turtles at JFK, we're almost ready to apologize and plead for DB's return.
Almost.
But not quite. He's still a fool. Besides, we love animals. Those turtles are CUTE!
Postscript
We're still wondering who Ross Douthat is. Please post your guesses here.
However, in light of his guest columnist's trenchant piece on the turtles at JFK, we're almost ready to apologize and plead for DB's return.
Almost.
But not quite. He's still a fool. Besides, we love animals. Those turtles are CUTE!
Postscript
We're still wondering who Ross Douthat is. Please post your guesses here.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Oh, Sure
So on Tuesday, we slam D.B. for his misguided column expressing relief that the adults in Congress finally have taken control over the debt ceiling debate. And on Friday, he's ... on vacation. No column. We slam him, he leaves town. Cause and effect? We think so.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Maybe on Planet Zuktar 7 to the 4th Power
Dave's headline today is "Congress in the Lead." The column is about the debt ceiling. And how Congress is in the lead, as in getting the job done. As in not futzing around, dragging its feet, being overly partisan, or kicking the can down the road. (That poor can, by the way. Everybody and his mother's been kicking it down the road. You just know it's going to get thrown under the bus one of these days.)
As Dave says, "... there has been an outbreak of sanity since Congress took control."
Thus we say, maybe on Planet Zuktar 7 to the 4th, but certainly not here on earth. Has Dave not been paying attention? We ALL hate Congress. Congress hates Congress. Why? Because it's ... refusing to lead.
Postscript
Oh! So That's Professional Behavior!
Dave takes Obama to task for lecturing and belittling Congress, whereas it's really Congress who's the adult in the room (that adult in the room is getting quite the workout lately. You just know it's going to get thrown under the bus with that can one of these days). Dave writes:
"John Boehner and Harry Reid will continue to verbally abuse each other. But there’s a script to their taunts. Nobody’s feelings are hurt. The old pros are perfectly capable of exchanging clichéd volleys in the morning and then going off and negotiating with each other in the afternoon."
Earth to Zuktar 7 to the 4th: That's exactly what we hate!
'None of Us Is As Dumb As All of Us'*
Did Dave really endorse the idea of delegating this basic function of Congress to a committee? I think he did: "... with much of the heavy lifting done by a bipartisan select committee." Oh, my bad. Not just a "committee," but a "select committee." Oooh!
You see why we say David Brooks is a fool?
*From Demotivators, Despair, Inc.
In Sum
Lots of Awful Argumentation today.
Dave's headline today is "Congress in the Lead." The column is about the debt ceiling. And how Congress is in the lead, as in getting the job done. As in not futzing around, dragging its feet, being overly partisan, or kicking the can down the road. (That poor can, by the way. Everybody and his mother's been kicking it down the road. You just know it's going to get thrown under the bus one of these days.)
As Dave says, "... there has been an outbreak of sanity since Congress took control."
Thus we say, maybe on Planet Zuktar 7 to the 4th, but certainly not here on earth. Has Dave not been paying attention? We ALL hate Congress. Congress hates Congress. Why? Because it's ... refusing to lead.
Postscript
"Vote on Boehner Plan Delayed Amid Opposition" (NYT, 7.27.11, page 1)
Oh! So That's Professional Behavior!
Dave takes Obama to task for lecturing and belittling Congress, whereas it's really Congress who's the adult in the room (that adult in the room is getting quite the workout lately. You just know it's going to get thrown under the bus with that can one of these days). Dave writes:
"John Boehner and Harry Reid will continue to verbally abuse each other. But there’s a script to their taunts. Nobody’s feelings are hurt. The old pros are perfectly capable of exchanging clichéd volleys in the morning and then going off and negotiating with each other in the afternoon."
Earth to Zuktar 7 to the 4th: That's exactly what we hate!
'None of Us Is As Dumb As All of Us'*
Did Dave really endorse the idea of delegating this basic function of Congress to a committee? I think he did: "... with much of the heavy lifting done by a bipartisan select committee." Oh, my bad. Not just a "committee," but a "select committee." Oooh!
You see why we say David Brooks is a fool?
*From Demotivators, Despair, Inc.
In Sum
Lots of Awful Argumentation today.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Just a Sliver, Really
"Sometime early last week, a large slice of educated America decided that Amy Chua is a menace to society. Chua, as you probably know, is the Yale professor who has written a bracing critique of what she considers the weak, cuddling American parenting style."
Need We Say More?
Oh, Boy
For self-parody, Dave exceeds himself today. And he does it in the very first paragraph:
"Sometime early last week, a large slice of educated America decided that Amy Chua is a menace to society. Chua, as you probably know, is the Yale professor who has written a bracing critique of what she considers the weak, cuddling American parenting style."
What the --!
Now, empircally speaking, how would he know that a slice, of whatever size, decided anything about Amy Chua? My guess, which is supported by as much evidence as Dave's assertion, is that the far larger portion of educated America has no idea who Amy Chua is. In that context, it's bracing indeed that Dave writes "as you probably know."
At best, lots of people saw a story somewhere about "Tiger mothers," and maybe read enough to conclude that any parent who likes this woman must be a whack and a half.
Brooks a Commie?
Dave displays his lack of intellectual consistency when he writes:
"Researchers ... have found that groups have a high collective intelligence when members of a group ... take turns speaking, when the inputs from each member are managed fluidly, when they detect each others’ inclinations and strengths. Participating in a well-functioning group is really hard."
That's curiously collectivist thinking from a conservative individualist. I thought we were all supposed to sink or swim on our own?
Tell It to Palin
In that same excerpt, substitute "groups" with "society" and apply Dave's observations to America's political discourse:
"Researchers ... have found that society has a high collective intelligence when members of society ... take turns speaking, when the inputs from each member are managed fluidly, when they detect each others’ inclinations and strengths."
Let's just hope our politicians never learn about this research. They might have to change the way they speak about issues and address their opponents. And that'd be hard! As Dave notes, with his customary perspicacity and facility for phrasing, "Participating in a well-functioning society is really hard." Yarp!
The Appeal Renewed
Please, New York Times. Thank Brooks for his hard work and contributions over the years, and give his space to someone with something fresh and interesting to say.
For self-parody, Dave exceeds himself today. And he does it in the very first paragraph:
"Sometime early last week, a large slice of educated America decided that Amy Chua is a menace to society. Chua, as you probably know, is the Yale professor who has written a bracing critique of what she considers the weak, cuddling American parenting style."
What the --!
Now, empircally speaking, how would he know that a slice, of whatever size, decided anything about Amy Chua? My guess, which is supported by as much evidence as Dave's assertion, is that the far larger portion of educated America has no idea who Amy Chua is. In that context, it's bracing indeed that Dave writes "as you probably know."
At best, lots of people saw a story somewhere about "Tiger mothers," and maybe read enough to conclude that any parent who likes this woman must be a whack and a half.
Brooks a Commie?
Dave displays his lack of intellectual consistency when he writes:
"Researchers ... have found that groups have a high collective intelligence when members of a group ... take turns speaking, when the inputs from each member are managed fluidly, when they detect each others’ inclinations and strengths. Participating in a well-functioning group is really hard."
That's curiously collectivist thinking from a conservative individualist. I thought we were all supposed to sink or swim on our own?
Tell It to Palin
In that same excerpt, substitute "groups" with "society" and apply Dave's observations to America's political discourse:
"Researchers ... have found that society has a high collective intelligence when members of society ... take turns speaking, when the inputs from each member are managed fluidly, when they detect each others’ inclinations and strengths."
Let's just hope our politicians never learn about this research. They might have to change the way they speak about issues and address their opponents. And that'd be hard! As Dave notes, with his customary perspicacity and facility for phrasing, "Participating in a well-functioning society is really hard." Yarp!
The Appeal Renewed
Please, New York Times. Thank Brooks for his hard work and contributions over the years, and give his space to someone with something fresh and interesting to say.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Extremely Grave, Extremely Gross
Today's column psychoanalyzing the Tuscon killer and the mainstream media -- moral equivalence, anyone? -- is a classic of the Brooksian form. Dave sets the theme by writing, "Accusations "that political actors contributed to the murder of 6 people, including a 9-year-old girl ... are extremely grave."
Leaving aside the dubious assertion that any serious observer has made a direct causal link between Sarah Palin's violent and reckless public vituperations -- and the weird term "political actors" -- why are misrepresentations and lies such as the "death panels" calumny of the late health care debate not "extremely grave"?
Little ironies
For that matter, why was it not "extremely grave" for people to bring loaded weapons to health care town hall meetings, a delicious little irony?
Why is it not "extremely grave" for a mentally unstable person to be allowed to buy a semiautomatic handgun, whose only purpose could be to kill people?
Why is it not "extremely grave" for prominent political figures to use blatantly violent and intimidating language and images in political discourse -- Palin's cross-hairs graphic and her "reload" remark; Sharron Angle's "Second Amendment remedies"; Bachman's "armed and dangerous" exhortation -- why were those not "extremely grave" public eruptions?
Palin's Death Wish
And what is it about Sarah Palin's obsession with death? Death panels, shooting a caribou with a telescopic rifle, stamping cross-hairs on political opponents, exhorting gun enthusiasts seriously aggrieved at government to "reload" -- David, if you want to psychoanalyze a public person, take a shot at Palin.
And finally, you gotta love Brooks's castigation of the "mainstream media." Hey, David? You work for the New York Times, NPR and PBS. It don't get more mainstream than that, so please acknowledge that you're no media iconoclast.
Obscure Reference Ticker: Leonard Pinth Garnell
In today's column, Dave cites that extremely well-known writer Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, "a research psychiatrist [who] writes in his book 'The Insanity Offense,' about 1 percent of the seriously mentally ill (or about 40,000 individuals) are violent." That 1 percent? That's about 99 percent greater than the number of people who have ever heard of Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, who sounds like a relation of E. Buzz Miller or Leonard Pinth Garnell.
Leaving aside the dubious assertion that any serious observer has made a direct causal link between Sarah Palin's violent and reckless public vituperations -- and the weird term "political actors" -- why are misrepresentations and lies such as the "death panels" calumny of the late health care debate not "extremely grave"?
Little ironies
For that matter, why was it not "extremely grave" for people to bring loaded weapons to health care town hall meetings, a delicious little irony?
Why is it not "extremely grave" for a mentally unstable person to be allowed to buy a semiautomatic handgun, whose only purpose could be to kill people?
Why is it not "extremely grave" for prominent political figures to use blatantly violent and intimidating language and images in political discourse -- Palin's cross-hairs graphic and her "reload" remark; Sharron Angle's "Second Amendment remedies"; Bachman's "armed and dangerous" exhortation -- why were those not "extremely grave" public eruptions?
Palin's Death Wish
And what is it about Sarah Palin's obsession with death? Death panels, shooting a caribou with a telescopic rifle, stamping cross-hairs on political opponents, exhorting gun enthusiasts seriously aggrieved at government to "reload" -- David, if you want to psychoanalyze a public person, take a shot at Palin.
And finally, you gotta love Brooks's castigation of the "mainstream media." Hey, David? You work for the New York Times, NPR and PBS. It don't get more mainstream than that, so please acknowledge that you're no media iconoclast.
Obscure Reference Ticker: Leonard Pinth Garnell
In today's column, Dave cites that extremely well-known writer Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, "a research psychiatrist [who] writes in his book 'The Insanity Offense,' about 1 percent of the seriously mentally ill (or about 40,000 individuals) are violent." That 1 percent? That's about 99 percent greater than the number of people who have ever heard of Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, who sounds like a relation of E. Buzz Miller or Leonard Pinth Garnell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)