Friday, February 19, 2010

The Original. Not the Compromised Second Draft

You know, I would not mind the New York Times' stable of totally insane op-ed contributors if just one of these pussies had the strength of his own bullshit convictions. Instead, yesterday, Insane War Harpy (read as: "graduate student") Lara M. Dadkhah argued that we need to carpet bomb the fuck out of Afghanistan and fuck the civilians, all the while caveating like my boyfriend Johnny Weir in a sit spin that this is not to say that we should be killing billions of Afghans blah blah blah. And today, David "It Ain't easy Bein' Green" Brooks argues that we should return to his bullshit MGM pastiche of Times Gone By even as he says, "This is not to say that we should return to the days of the WASP ascendancy." Oh, it's not? Well . . . what is it to say? What the fuck are you talking about? Is it just . . . is it just, Well, isn't this interesting? Because in that case: No, no, it isn't really very interesting. It would be interesting if David Brooks said, "Look, meritocracy is a farce and a fraud. We need to reconstitute the pre-Civil Rights Republic. We need to repeal the 17th Amendment." I mean, it would be monstrous, but at least it would be interesting.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think what he's really asking is that universities return to instilling "virtuous" behavior and "knowledge" second (assuming of course that that ever stopped being the case!)

I will say I'd trust my banker rather more if he'd spent his days in college reading Virgil or whatever than whatever it is they do in business schools.

Also: "women, African-Americans, Jews, Italians, Poles, Hispanics and members of many other groups"; lol.

jethrosexual said...

IOZ, ya know, it's Bobo Brooks, so his toe slipped over the line a little, big deal. It's just a game, man.

ts said...

What would be interesting is if David Brooks stole a small plane and flew it into the NY Times building.

These op-eds are a cry for help.

MARK IT ZERO!

Ashley said...

That’s the whole point of this sort of cognitive dissonance. It allows total fucking evil to appear to coexist with complete graciousness in an individual and they seem to expect the outcome will be some sort of highly elevated wisdom but what they arrive at is what you describe: banality.

Anonymous said...

I thought this was the content of every David Brooks column: "Man, them liberals and women's libbers and abolitionists sure have screwed stuff up! Gimme the good old days! I mean, not that I approve of slavery or nothin. I'm just sayin."

alexi de sadesky said...

Mad lulz, son. It really is remarkable how these op-eders can go off for a whole paragraph like a toyota with an acceleration glitch and then right at the end, just when you think, "Yes! They're going to do it! They're gonna run themselves right off that cliff." They manage to contradict everything they just said, pump the brakes and whip out a "not that there's anything wrong with that."

NutellaonToast said...

Oh shit, I never knew you were retro.

ts said...

I don't read David Brooks op-eds regularly for the same reason Matt Taibbi doesn't read Thomas Friedman op-eds: while they're easy targets for a 500-word rant, they'll eat your brain away if you try to ingest more than one per year.

Still, this is classic Brooksie. Start with an uprovable, unequivocal statement: "One of the great achievements of modern times is that we've made society more fair." Then spend the rest of the text citing evidence that contradicts this claim. So how else can you end such an article except with "This is not to say..."?

I think the proper shorter for this piece would be: "Sure, life ain't fair, but back in my day we didn't bitch about it all the time. Now shut up and get back to work."

Moloch-Agonistes said...

On the other hand, the upside of returning to the days of WASP ascendency would be that we wouldn't have to read David brooks with our morning newspaper.

Anonymous said...

As a literal WASP (not that we had money or anything, but you know) I kind of want to throw kreplach and Leon Uris books at Brooks and tell him to dance like a monkey for his gelt.

Rowan said...

I'm usually pretty convinced that the only reason the Times employs Tom Friedman is to make David Brooks look smarter, but then maybe I think it's the other way around?

Moloch-Agonistes said...

Or Thomas Friedman.

If you think about it, revanchist WASPism may be the only way we can save the New York Times editorial page. As Yerkes and Goddard were right. One must never let those morons breed.

Enron said...

"One of the great achievements of modern times is that we have made society more fair." What the fuck is he talking about? What is "merit?" Though it would be interesting, if the Reconstruction Amendments were repealed, to see the yid don the Klan mask so he could finally prove himself to his waspy Ivy League buddies.

TGGP said...

ts, Brooks didn't say anything suggesting that modern society is unfair (though it is fucked-up in a number of ways). I think The Bell Curve went further in that direction, although it may have been wrong to see increasing segregation of dim from sharp as undesirable.

WASPS are popular folks to hate. Even white nationalists are angry at them for being such lily-livers that they gave the country away to non-whites and/or jews. Yankee Puritans in particular are hated for crushing the Confederacy. An exception is this guy, who is probably my favorite internet racist.

Anonymous said...

...the comments here are just as dumb(by which i mean inconsistent) as the Brooks columnn referenced; which, naturally I didn't read, but ascertain the gist of via the comments here.

If I critique the comments here I would be implicitly endorsing Brooks' inanity, which I've no intention of doing. If I critique both sides and offer an alternative paradigmatic account from clearly delineated principles I'd be in over the word-count limit of comments, so. No. or, another time and place.

Suffice. I just found the blog today. Much of it is funny and sensible (especially appreciate the contrast with official b'shit).

Anonymous said...

I could have also said: When you attack David Brooks you attack a straw man.

It's a worthwhile project to the extent that the NYT (tragically) is the 'serious' paper of this country.

At the same time, being maintained at that hideously low level of discourse will get you/us nowhere. Shoot then move... by which one must mean to establish a an actual replacement paradigm; make it explicit. Pure snark just eats itself. Pure cynicism => pure bad-conscience => established presence of power wins by default. So, you wind up posting snarky digs at Brookses in perpetuity, ad-infinitum.
...if that translates.

Montag said...

one must mean to establish a an actual replacement paradigm; make it explicit.

you *are* new here.

Mr.Fundamental said...

straw men! Jesus.

say what you like about the tenets of blawg!1!!, Dude, at least it's an ethos.