• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Every one of the “Roberts Six” lied to get on the court.

Jack Smith: “Why did you start campaigning in the middle of my investigation?!”

Everyone is in a bubble, but some bubbles model reality far better than others!

The rest of the comments were smacking Boebert like she was a piñata.

I’m sure you banged some questionable people yourself. We’re allowed to grow past that.

Narcissists are always shocked to discover other people have agency.

Yeah, with this crowd one never knows.

Hey Washington Post, “Democracy Dies in Darkness” is supposed to be a warning, not a mission statement.

Their freedom requires your slavery.

I conferred with the team and they all agree – still not tired of winning!

Live so that if you miss a day of work people aren’t hoping you’re dead.

Too often we hand the biggest microphones to the cynics and the critics who delight in declaring failure.

Republicans do not pay their debts.

There’s always a light at the end of the frog.

Republican speaker of the house Mike Johnson is the bland and smiling face of evil.

Let us savor the impending downfall of lawless scoundrels who richly deserve the trouble barreling their way.

They are lying in pursuit of an agenda.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

Don’t expect peaches from an apple tree.

“I never thought they’d lock HIM up,” sobbed a distraught member of the Lock Her Up Party.

The gop is a fucking disgrace.

… gradually, and then suddenly.

In my day, never was longer.

The line between political reporting and fan fiction continues to blur.

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Politicans / David Brooks Giving A Seminar At The Aspen Institute / Don’t hate the player

Don’t hate the player

by DougJ|  July 12, 201111:01 am| 50 Comments

This post is in: David Brooks Giving A Seminar At The Aspen Institute

FacebookTweetEmail

I Hate The New York Times has written the definitive analysis of David Brooks.

David Brooks is an idiot. His writing is terrible, and his “ideas” (insofar as he has any) are horrible. But analyzing the badness of David Brooks is a tricky proposition. There are three reasons why. First, because it’s been done before. Unlike such previous targets of my blog as Pamela Paul, Neil Ganzlinger and Philip Galanes whose writings are simply ignored by most readers with normal-range cognitive abilities, Brooks is often actively denounced by serious thinkers. His work, while no more thoughtful, logical or well-informed than that of the average Styles-section celebrity profile hack, nonetheless draws many times more commentary and debate simply because it appears in the Opinion section. However copious his lies, evasions and self-serving half-truths, political bloggers debunk them as soon as they appear.

Despite his cushy spot on the back page of the “A” section, David Brooks isn’t just interested in slamming Obama’s foreign policy and defending the Bush tax cuts. Brooks is just as eager to torment his readers with vague, knee-jerk reactions to movies, technology, sexuality, fashion trends, and philosophy. Indeed, that’s the second reason why the Brooks oeuvre is so hard to take. It encapsulates everything that’s bad about bad NYT writing: Pop-culture references that don’t make sense, high-culture references deployed to no purpose, sexism disguised as high-mindedness, fear of sex, ambivalent fascination with technology, unthinking science worship, and ignorance of history, all encased in a veneer of moderation and likeableness.

But some people must like his forays into film review and cultural satire. And indeed, some people do — just look at his Facebook page or the sales figures for his dumbass books. The veneer of likeableness is working. In fact, that’s the third reason that Brooks is so difficult to write about. The reasons why he’s horrible are indistinguishable from the reasons why he’s admired and praised. He’s the go-to conservative for liberals who want to feel open-minded, the guy they can “respect” for his apparent intelligence and moderation.

Indeed, the real question here isn’t “why is David Brooks such a smug, shallow writer?” That’s no mystery, there are plenty of smug, shallow writers out there. The real question here is “why do so many totebaggers love David Brooks so much?”

I doubt the answer to this is as simple as the answer to the age-old question “why do white people love Wayne Brady so much?”, but it’s the same type of question.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Pray the Gay Away
Next Post: Bad Politics »

Reader Interactions

50Comments

  1. 1.

    Zifnab

    July 12, 2011 at 11:08 am

    I doubt the answer to this is as simple as the answer to the age-old question “why do white people love Wayne Brady so much?”, but it’s the same type of question.

    David Brooks is my conservative friend.

  2. 2.

    driftglass

    July 12, 2011 at 11:20 am

    At this point it is simply impossible for Our Mr. Brooks not to know that he is lying.

    And that we obviously know he is lying.

    And that he knows that we know that he knows.

    And so on.

    Exciting!

    http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2011/07/greatest-fraud-in-american-journalism.html

  3. 3.

    beltane

    July 12, 2011 at 11:21 am

    Two words will suffice to answer this question: Bourgeois Vulgarity.

    David Brooks epitomises the intellectual laziness smug narcissism of the American upper-middle class. He is the standard-bearer for the middle-brow mediocrity of the New York Times’ regular readership, the Panglosses who lap up the unintentionally offensive lifestyle sections, the same people who thought David Broder was a sensible man.

    My relatives mostly belong to the totebagger set, and I can tell you that in their own way they are just as delusional as the teabaggers, though far less hateful and angry.

  4. 4.

    hilts

    July 12, 2011 at 11:23 am

    The real question here is “why do so many totebaggers love David Brooks so much?”

    Because they can’t resist someone who delivers wisdom like this:

    I came to the conclusion is that we have a very shallow view of human nature in the policy world. We’re really good at talking about material things, really bad at talking about emotions, really good at stuff we can count, really bad at the deeper stuff that actually drives behavior. So, I’m stuck in this shallow world of policy. And over here, in the world of neuroscience, psychology, sociology, I see a much deeper world, where they’re really getting at some of the core issues of why we do what we do. So, basically, I want to take their world and bring it into my world… We think we’re divided. We think we have reason over here, which is trustworthy, and then emotion over here, which is — sort of we’re suspicious of. But we’re not divided. One of the things this world is finding is that emotion is the basis of reason. We really have to trust our emotions, which are much smarter than our reason in some ways… When we make our marriage decisions, often, it’s on the basis of things we’re not even aware of. People tend to marry people with similar-width noses, eyes similarly apart, with complementary immune systems… We have this pretense that we make our political decisions on the basis of who has the right policies. That’s not it. It’s: Who do we feel comfortable with? Who, unconsciously, do we commune with…I’m not the most emotionally attuned guy in the world. My wife says that me writing about emotion is like Gandhi writing about gluttony.

    h/t http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/jan-june11/davidbrooks_03-08.html

    Maureen Dowd is just as much of an idiot as David Brooks and her writing is criminally awful.

  5. 5.

    me

    July 12, 2011 at 11:24 am

    Because he makes Tim Pawlenty look like Michelle Bachmann? (WRT how threatening they appear only)

  6. 6.

    driftglass

    July 12, 2011 at 11:35 am

    David Brooks does invaluable service as the inoffensively mediocre voice of our decadent, collapsing American Empire. He our Peter Keating come to life, and makes a fabulous living by telling a small clique of very wealthy, deeply-cocooned, Davos-people about the imaginary world they want to believe is outside of their global castle.

    But it is nearing midnight at their little costume party.

    And the Red Death is already inside the walls.

  7. 7.

    biff diggerence

    July 12, 2011 at 11:36 am

    “why is David Brooks such a smug, shallow writer?”

    I’ll defer to Mr. Brooks’ stereotyping for a response:

    He’s a born and bred Main Line Fop.

  8. 8.

    cmorenc

    July 12, 2011 at 11:37 am

    It’s Ross Douthat’s job on the NYT Op-Ed pages to make David Brooks look open-minded, smart, and libertarian (in moderation, of course) by comparison. Douthat must be succeeding, because both seem to have kept their positions on the NYT editorial pages for awhile now.

  9. 9.

    Brian R.

    July 12, 2011 at 11:38 am

    I doubt the answer to this is as simple as the answer to the age-old question “why do white people love Wayne Brady so much?”, but it’s the same type of question.

    Is David Brooks gonna have to choke a bitch?

  10. 10.

    DougJ in Damascus

    July 12, 2011 at 11:40 am

    Is David Brooks gonna have to choke a bitch?

    Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

  11. 11.

    Joel

    July 12, 2011 at 11:41 am

    Brooks is the blue pill for people who don’t want to believe in Republicans.

  12. 12.

    Joel

    July 12, 2011 at 11:43 am

    Most people I know who read Brooks don’t read fashion, or anything else on NYT other than front page FWIW. They do listen to NPR though.

  13. 13.

    Han's Solo

    July 12, 2011 at 11:44 am

    Wow, this must be beat up on Bobo day. Steve Bennen is on the same track:

    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.”

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_07/predictions_that_didnt_turn_ou030804.php

  14. 14.

    biff diggerence

    July 12, 2011 at 11:47 am

    What?

    $350.00 Pinots aren’t available at Appleby’s?

  15. 15.

    aimai

    July 12, 2011 at 11:48 am

    Brooks and Friedman supply the same thing to their readers: a sanitized view into the sewer that is free market/right wing thought. If the NYT published articles by bona fide teabaggers/natalists/red staters the hospitals would be swamped with people being rushed in on stretchers due to crippling belly laughs. Instead the actual beliefs and goals of the right wing are offered to us cleaned, scrubbed, and at a slight distance. Friedman’s shtick is to venture abroad to lecture stay at home liberals about how well capitalism works overseas. Brooks’ shtick is to venture into the ethnographic wilds of, variously, heartleand america or science and sociology to bring back encouraging tales proving that we live in the best of all possible worlds and they couldn’t get any better. For another, more “youthful” version of this see Megan McCardle. All three give people with a certain amount of higher education an occasional whiff of references to respected authorities/academic types to make their moronic observations seem like a quickie ed course in some academic topic. Nostalgie de la grad seminar on foreign affairs, american politics, and the economy with the added benefit of being one hundred percent detached from facts and reality.

    aimai

  16. 16.

    Chris

    July 12, 2011 at 11:50 am

    Indeed, the real question here isn’t “why is David Brooks such a smug, shallow writer?” That’s no mystery, there are plenty of smug, shallow writers out there. The real question here is “why do so many totebaggers love David Brooks so much?”

    He fills a niche, that’s all.

    Several niches, in fact. Liberals in desperate need of a “good,” “serious” conservative to go to. Independents, moderates and other idiots who like to feel that they’re above it all. Conservatives with intellectual pretensions. All those people who’re turned off by the rabid insanity of more rabid GOP activists, but just can’t bring themselves to hold their nose and vote with the DFHs no matter what.

    Yeah, there’s a market out there for people like him. He responds to the demand, that’s all.

  17. 17.

    ABL

    July 12, 2011 at 11:50 am

    is bobo gonna have to choke a bitch?

  18. 18.

    ABL

    July 12, 2011 at 11:51 am

    (or what brian r said.)

  19. 19.

    Villago Delenda Est

    July 12, 2011 at 11:53 am

    ABL, see comments 9 and 10.

    You’re late to the party. Refreshing fizzy beverages on you!

  20. 20.

    cyntax

    July 12, 2011 at 11:54 am

    I doubt the answer to this is as simple as the answer to the age-old question “why do white people love Wayne Brady so much?”, but it’s the same type of question.

    Wait, why isn’t it this simple?

  21. 21.

    Sly

    July 12, 2011 at 11:54 am

    David Brooks is that soft voice whispering in their ear of Upper West Side liberals, telling them that its OK to send their kids to a $30,000 a year private school so they can avoid contact with “those other kids” in the city system.

    He helps them justify their unearned status and cloistered lifestyle. Ditto Friedman.

  22. 22.

    JGabriel

    July 12, 2011 at 11:55 am

    Excellent. I only have one quibble.

    betoma @ ihatenyt:

    [Brooks] the go-to conservative for liberals centrists who want to feel open-minded …

    I don’t know any liberals who can stomach Brooks. They/We all think he’s an idiot and an Orwellianly bad writer.

    .

  23. 23.

    gogol's wife

    July 12, 2011 at 11:57 am

    You can never say anything new on this blog. I was going to say I only love Wayne Brady in that sketch with Dave Chappelle that I learned about here, but I’ve been beat to it by several people. Sigh.

  24. 24.

    Nicole

    July 12, 2011 at 11:58 am

    I like Wayne Brady because, during the height of Who’s Line Is It Anyway, a friend sent him a fan letter telling him how much her five-year-old daughter liked him and that she wanted to invite him to her upcoming birthday party. A few weeks later, an enormous stuffed toy arrived in the mail for the little girl.

    Bobo would likely have sent a “discounted” copy of his book.

    But now the image of Bobo at a five-year-old’s party is going to make me laugh all day.

  25. 25.

    J

    July 12, 2011 at 12:02 pm

    Not sure what there is to object to in an ‘ambivalent fascination with technology’ but otherwise spot on. Think Beltane @3 nails it.

  26. 26.

    JGabriel

    July 12, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    @cmorenc:

    It’s Ross Douthat’s job on the NYT Op-Ed pages to make David Brooks look open-minded, smart, and libertarian (in moderation, of course) …

    Huh. I always thought it was Douthat’s job to make intelligent people recoil with revulsion and think, “Eww… ick.”

    Perhaps that’s what you meant by “make David Brooks look open-minded”.

    .

  27. 27.

    Svensker

    July 12, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    I doubt the answer to this is as simple as the answer to the age-old question “why do white people love Wayne Brady so much?”

    Who is Wayne Brady?

    I googled. Guess I don’t get out much.

    David Brooks & Tommy Friedman are two smug assholic and dumb peas in a pod. Lots of other things to hate about the Times, like Douthat and Dowd, but Brooks and Friedman, in their faux intellectualism, faux thoughtfulness and very real narcissism, symbolize everything that’s wrong with that rag.

  28. 28.

    cmorenc

    July 12, 2011 at 12:07 pm

    @aimai:

    Brooks and Friedman supply the same thing to their readers: a sanitized view into the sewer that is free market/right wing thought.

    Why do we have “Friedman Units” but no “Bobo Units”?

  29. 29.

    DonkeyKong

    July 12, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    Reading Bobo is like spraying fracking discharge on trees rather than pumping it right into the ground water. You die slow inside and don’t really realize it’s happening.

  30. 30.

    arguingwithsignposts

    July 12, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    says all you need to know about Brooks:

    Imagine a man who buys a chicken from the grocery store, manages to bring himself to orgasm by penetrating it, then cooks and eats the chicken.

  31. 31.

    jl

    July 12, 2011 at 12:14 pm

    Just some short comments. No time to get links. Anyone asks, I can try to find some later.

    Brooks says
    “ The number of Americans on the permanent disability rolls, meanwhile, has steadily increased. Ten years ago, 5 million Americans collected a federal disability benefit. Now 8.2 million do. That costs taxpayers $115 billion a year, or about $1,500 per household. “

    Disability claims are increasing. But Brooks ignores the causality going in the direction he does not like. According to Brooks lazy men go on disability and this hurts productivity. Well, to the extent that eligibility requirements have been lowered there might be some truth to this.

    But Brooks ignores evidence that disability claims are a response to changes in aggregate demand, and that people choose disability because they have a hard time finding a job, or cannot afford adequate medical care to allow them to work at a job on the going wage. But this part of the story is inconsistent with Brooks decision to be the anti Krugman in the NY Times column page.

    “ Part of the problem has to do with structural changes in the economy. Sectors like government, health care and leisure have been growing, generating jobs for college grads. Sectors like manufacturing, agriculture and energy have been getting more productive, but they have not been generating more jobs. Instead, companies are using machines or foreign workers. “

    Brooks completely ignores the role of the high dollar policy and federal tax incentives that reduced manufacturing in the U.S. Past Democratic administrations share responsibility for the high dollar policy, particularly Clinton, so this is a nice centrist bipartisan issue he could raise. But maybe it would involve criticizing the decisions of our betters (for, according to Brooks, while my manic energy is needed to drive the US economy, I am also supposed to be very very humble, unless one of his major previous themes is now inoperative.

    Edit: forgot to say that mentioning this aspect of the problem might cause problems for Brooks when he travels in the circles of the Very Serious.

    ” Health care spending, which mostly provides comfort to those beyond working years, is expanding. ”

    This is misleading. There is a body of research that shows that most health care goes towards investment in human capital until sometime between 40 and 50, then most is devoted to consumption of increased comfort, rather than improving health. By ignoring the dual role of health care, Brooks slips in some standard propaganda that health care is like a big screen TV, nice if you can afford it, but any policies that help people get it lead to over consumption that is unproductive.

    “ There are basically two ways to cut back on the government health care spending. From the top, a body of experts can be empowered to make rationing decisions. This is the approach favored by President Obama and in use in many countries around the world. “

    NO NO NO NO NO! That is NOT the Obama proposals. Look, you have a pot of money to spend on health. If you want to get the highest level of health services out of that pot, you do research to find out what treatments are most effective, and then you institute policies to make sure the most effective treatments are used FIRST. You identify treatments for which there is little evidence of effectiveness and you decide that people should pay for them out of pocket or a private supplementary insurance, rather than the basic health care plan the government requires that you have.

    The whole idea is to AVOID the need for rationing wherever possible. It is as simple as teaching your kid, if you want to put a nail into a wall, use a hammer, don’t use a handle of a screwdriver, even if it means you have to maybe take two seconds to put the screwdriver down and go find the hammer.

    So, here, Brooks simple does not know what he is talking about. Truly truly clueless, or intentionally misleading.

    Very poor and disappointing performance, even for him.

  32. 32.

    agrippa

    July 12, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    I do not really see the problem here. If you do not like Brooks, do not read Brooks.

    Is he an evil purveyor of vile lies and needs to be exposed?

    Or, is he, simply, mediocre?

    Well, mediocrity is a commonplace.

    I have no difficulty with people who do not appreciate Brooks.

  33. 33.

    Napoleon

    July 12, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    I like Wayne Brady because . . .

    The guy is genuinely talented, in a throw back kind of way. At one time (40s – 60s) you had entertainers who could dance, sing, act, etc. He is that kid of guy.

  34. 34.

    jl

    July 12, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    Sorry for typos and rough grammar. Cole’s obviously communist big government run edit function timed out before I finished cleaning it up.

    Gotta go. I;m in the office today and my day gig looks kind of difficult and long today, so am going to claim my disability. Got a minor strain on of my wrists, and can’t figure out where it came from. It’s damn unsolvable medical mystery is what it is, and I got no energy to try to work through it.

  35. 35.

    The Tragically Flip

    July 12, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    I do not really see the problem here. If you do not like Brooks, do not read Brooks.

    Not reading Brooks != Brooks has no impact on your life

    Brooks is part of a political movement that is busy reinstating feudalism. There are worse actors in this play, but Brooks has enough scenes in it to matter.

  36. 36.

    Comrade Luke

    July 12, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    As much as I totally agree with the sentiments here – so much so that I just discontinued my NYT Sunday subscription – the key thing to remember is that Brooks, Friedman & Douthat are only doing what they’re being rewarded for via their (I assume) enormous paychecks.

    As in most cases, it’s more the fault of their bosses for rewarding the behavior than the behavior itself. Which leads to the question: WTF is with the Times?

    I don’t think any of this is going to change. I’d be less surprised to see Peggy Noonan show up on the editorial page than either of these other clowns leaving.

  37. 37.

    TreeBeard

    July 12, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    I’m brown and I like Wayne Brady. Is that allowed?

  38. 38.

    RickyRoma

    July 12, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    More interesting question: Why does an intelligent, interesting blogger like DougJ continue to use the ‘totebagger’ pejorative? Is he unaware of the fact that everytime he does it, he invalidates the post and sounds like a complete moron?

  39. 39.

    different church-lady

    July 12, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    Well, all that, but also don’t forget that he’s on the Tee Vee a lot. Frequently even that public Tee Vee, right along side Mr. Rodgers.

  40. 40.

    General Stuck

    July 12, 2011 at 12:46 pm

    deleted, wrong thread.

  41. 41.

    someguy

    July 12, 2011 at 12:48 pm

    He’s the go-to conservative for liberals who want to feel open-minded, the guy they can “respect” for his apparent intelligence and moderation.

    This is silly. There’s no need for liberalism to have a token house conservative, just to make liberals to feel open minded. That’s because there is no reason whatsoever to be open minded about conservatives, any more than there’s reason to be open minded about the opinions of any other criminally insane people. Savor the haterade, people!

  42. 42.

    jl

    July 12, 2011 at 12:51 pm

    Just a note before I go.

    Most people who have ever gone to a doc, probably know that there are first, second and third line treatments.

    See, the doc says ‘Hey, I know what’s wrong, we can fix that.” And you go “Great! What do we do.”

    Now very very observant people may have noticed that a conscientious doc often looks through a little book, or says “in a case like yours the best thing to try first is…” or the doc says that he or she needs to study up on the best thing to do, or another doc has it down pat, and you should go see that doc.

    Have you ever noticed that kids? Looks like Brooks has not.

    Anyway, making sure most effective treatments are prescribed first, as first line treatments can save a lot of money. Second line treatments, are well, used when the first line treatment fails.

    Big profitable drug and medical equipment companies sometimes don’t like this a approach if they have a patented something or other to sell.

    It might also be of interest to know that other countries, including the UK, have written down policies in their laws an regulations that say a person should have access to a effective life or limb or organ saving treatment even if it is very expensive. Compare that to the practice of US insurance companies.

    Anyway, in order to afford this compassionate policy, you have to be very efficient in how to order the use of first, second and third line treatments for less serious conditions.

  43. 43.

    bottyguy

    July 12, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    He has fine taste in whine

  44. 44.

    jl

    July 12, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    I also forgot about this mess:

    “Different versions of this approach are embodied in the Dutch system, the prescription drug benefit and Representative Paul Ryan’s budget.”

    the Dutch system has the second highest proportion of chronically ill patients who spend under US$500 out of pocket, the US has the highest, and less than half that of Netherlands.

    Spend less than $500 out of pocket
    US: 31%
    versus
    Netherlands: 72%
    highest is UK at 81%

    Netherlands has the third lowest proportion that pay more than $1000.
    US: 41%
    Netherlands: 8%

    Less than 10% in Netherlands had problems with access to care because of cost versus 54% in the US.

    The Netherlands DOES NOT use the consumer driven health care approach, which is the plan to ration care by consumers having to use their own dollars out of pocket (more skin in the game) to choose the most effective care.

    More evidence: In the Netherlands, 3% of the survey respondents had to wait 6 or more days to see a doctor, versus 23% in the US (which is third highest among the countries surveyed, behind Canada and Germany). Netherlands had the highest proportion of people being able to see doc on same day, 60%, compared to US which is tied with Canada for lowest at 26%.

    Brooks is WRONG WRONG WRONG here in comparing Netherlands approach to Ryan plan. Essentially, the Netherlands is a single payer system (though how the public money gets into the system is quite complex, with very highly regulated private providers, regulated as or more strictly as in Swiss system)

    Source for data:

    2008 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey of Sicker Adults

    http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Surveys/2008/2008-Commonwealth-Fund-International-Health-Policy-Survey-of-Sicker-Adults.aspx

  45. 45.

    jl

    July 12, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    You can read a short summary of the Netherlands system here, and see for yourself how much it has in common with the Ryan plan.

    Longer reports with more detail also available on another page, if you click around.

    http://www.euro.who.int/en/home/projects/observatory/publications/health-system-profiles-hits/hit-summaries

  46. 46.

    NonyNony

    July 12, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    @arguingwithsunspots

    Dear Grod. That list of the 10 weirdest sentences from Brooks’s book is disturbing:

    Like most women, she got lubricated even while looking at nature shows of animals copulating, even though consciously the thought of being aroused by animals was repellent.

    ‘This hand reaching to touch me across the table is not quite like my mother’s hand. It’s more like the hand of other people I wanted to have sex with.’

    The result was a pair of satisfying climaxes, and eventually, through the magic of the birds and the bees, a son.

    With his friends he was all ‘Yo! Douche bag!’ but in parental and polite adult company he used a language and set of mannerisms based on the pretence that he’d never gone through puberty.

    Erica was suddenly consumed by a burning desire to be a business leader.

    I don’t think Brooks’s book was written by a human being at all. Clearly this is the work of an AI that has had to piece together human emotions and expression based solely on what it’s read from the Internet.

  47. 47.

    Head Bulshytt Talker in Chief of the Temple of Libertarianism(superluminar)

    July 12, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    Clearly this is the work of an AI that has had to piece together human emotions and expression based solely on what it’s read from the Internet.

    You haven’t met matoko Chan, have you?

  48. 48.

    Bill Murray

    July 12, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    This is silly. There’s no need for liberalism to have a token house conservative, just to make liberals to feel open minded. That’s because there is no reason whatsoever to be open minded about conservatives, any more than there’s reason to be open minded about the opinions of any other criminally insane people. Savor the haterade, people!

    I see Brooks as really more the go to conservative for sensible centrists who want to believe the DFHs are just wrong about the conservatives so that they can continue to use current conservative positions to find that golden mean of centrist thought half way between the people with principles

  49. 49.

    Aaron S. Veenstra

    July 12, 2011 at 3:36 pm

    Totebaggers love David Brooks because he makes John Boehner look like John Bolton.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. The Economy Is Nothing Like a Menstrual Cycle! - Plasma Pool says:
    July 13, 2011 at 10:13 am

    […] Balloon Juice, I Hate the New York Times has written an in-depth analysis of David Brooks’s singular […]

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Quinerly on Monday Evening Open Thread: Another ‘Rich’ Narcissist, Having A Bad Start to His Week (Apr 16, 2024 @ 12:34am)
  • Jay on Monday Evening Open Thread: Another ‘Rich’ Narcissist, Having A Bad Start to His Week (Apr 16, 2024 @ 12:29am)
  • Feathers on Monday Evening Open Thread: Another ‘Rich’ Narcissist, Having A Bad Start to His Week (Apr 16, 2024 @ 12:22am)
  • Pennsylvanian on Hey Lurkers! (Apr 16, 2024 @ 12:12am)
  • Mr. Bemused Senior on Monday Evening Open Thread: Another ‘Rich’ Narcissist, Having A Bad Start to His Week (Apr 16, 2024 @ 12:01am)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!