Watch out, America, because David Brooks has written another one of his famous “theme” columns, in which he takes on a gimmick — like pretending to be Kierkegaard, or a doctor researching some new Obama disease, or a cartoon Asian Buddhist Negro being attacked by the Internet — and proceeds to embarrass himself for hundreds of words. Today he pretends to be a historian, or maybe just a Wikipedia writer, composing a brief summary of how during the Obama years, the majority party took a so-so economy, ran up the budget and made so many bad decisions that the American people started distrusting the government and other institutions of power completely. Just to repeat, he says this is what the future will look like.
The last paragraph, it is nerdy:
The nation had essentially bet its future on economic models with primitive views of human behavior. The government had tried to change social psychology using the equivalent of leeches and bleeding. Rather than blame themselves, Americans directed their anger toward policy makers and experts who based estimates of human psychology on mathematical equations.
That’s fine, robot historian, and there’s plenty to criticize w/r/t the stimulus package and Tim Geithner’s non-plan to fix the banking system. But… what should we have, then? Many of our “elite” conservative pundits like Brooks, George Will, and of course Peggington have taken to ranting about how shameful it is to spend all of this money, but they’re not quite retarded enough to support the “Republican alternative” — this magical sack of rats designed to keep government deficits down by eliminating all forms of government revenue. (Maybe George Will is? We don’t actually read him, just saw a headline or summary somewhere.)
Maybe David Brooks can send us a nice e-mail and tell us what he thinks would be a good idea, from the right. Paul Krugman hates on everything in his column today, too, but then states precisely what he wants. This is a basic standard of argumentation that we should expect from our major newspaper columnists. So should we have a different spending stimulus? Tax cuts? Nothing? Should the biggest banks, all insolvent now, be allowed to go under? Is the risk of hyperinflation or government default a bigger threat? These are impossible questions to which our dystopian future historian would know the answers! Please tell us, in the cartoon Asian Buddhist Negro voice.
The Worst-Case Scenario [NYT]
{ 47 comments }
THIS is still the best Obama future history story ever.
http://www.gamespite.net/talkingtime/showpost.php?p=382352&postcount=406
I picked up a copy of his “Bobos in Paradise” for $3 and wasn’t able to get through a quarter of it. And he claimed that Bill Kristol & Fred Barnes ‘begged’ him to write it.
His writing is only appreciated by his good friends because they are all as full of shit as he is.
I read this on the throne this morning and became so bound up I’ve sworn off Brooks until after all ablutions have been taken care of. In future, I will still maintain barfing distance of a commode, however.
“magical sack of rats” is the new “filthy cock jackal”. WIN for Newell!
“It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times”?! you stupid monkey!
I’m really getting sick of Brook’s cute shtick. If you don’t have any suggestions STFU.
The new Twilight Zone Episode: Tax Cuts Enough At Last
Time Traveler David Brooks steps out of his Re-TARDIS and turns to the punk haired, silver jumpsuit wearing yout’ carrying his jet pack and asks:
“Tell me, where can I find the Republican Party HQ?”
The kid asks: “Who?”
Brooks: “NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!”
The kid adds: “Oh. You mean the GOP? They merged with NAMBLA and Pat Robertson back in ’10, man.”
Brooks: “It’s NOT FAIR! IT’S NOT FAIR!!!!!11!!”
Narrator Rod Serling: “Yes, David Brooks, Time Traveler and total retard. The man who kept pushing this nonsense about Bipartisanship to some black muslin preznit in the vain effort to keep the party he shilled like a 1/2 diamond whore relevant failed. Proving that once again, you can not polish a turd, even in the Twilight Zone.
[re=243655]bitchincamaro[/re]: but what about “sad shit-sack???”
Senate has 58 votes for the stimulus package; needs 2 more to pass.
I would have thought the idea of a handsome black man asking for approval of his package would excite conservatives. Maybe it does and they’re hiding their excitement with fained disapproval.
As for asking them to provide an alternative, well…what do you expect? The sum of these people’s economic knowledge is that the answer to everything is to tax rich people less. Being mostly affluent it makes sense to them.
Thinking beyond that is beyond them – like Homer Simpson with a doughnut.
I’m sick of these jizz-stained handi wipe pundits doing “post-mortems” on Barry’s presidency three weeks in.
and during the Obama years, fleets of hybrid cars cause havoc and attack city after city and run them to the ground. Also, a secret banned organization called PUMA, saves the day by destroying the brain center controlling the Obamabots.
I believe David Brooks should have his stupid glasses frames shoved up his ass the next time he gets the urge to talk out of said piece of anatomy.
[re=243667]Numbat Dundee[/re]: Conservatives only get excited when a black man “forces” them to perform oral sex in a public bathroom. http://wonkette.com/287827/bob-allen-swears-hes-not-racist-not-queer-just-likes-park-bathrooms
[re=243651]chascates[/re]: The only people who really picked up on “Bobos in Paradise” were the French, and then only because the term “bobo” fit certain members of the French citizenry better than it fit their Etats-Unien equivalents. But even the French barely use the term anymore, and have no idea who David Brooks is, and do not care, which is as it should be.
Brooks hasn’t seen the future. He’s more a George McFly than a Marty McFly.
As one of the “cognitive scientists” that Brooks refers to, I give him a D+. He correctly identifies that there is both rational and emotional decision-making and identifies one of several neural substrates involved in one of those two. However, his application of this concept reveals his surface-level knowledge of the topic.
. . . oh, I’ll stop that now . . . I have real papers to grade from college students who could write a better paper.
Is he wearing lipstick?
Yes, and when all of that happens, it will be a public relations nightmare. In Brooks’s mind.
How many times have we told David Brooks that it’s a bad idea to write his column right after watching Scanners?
BTW, the Australian Senate just passed our stimulus package. Everyone in Australia who earns less than $100,000 a year will get paid $900. The argument is that it’s better to give money to the working class because we’ll spend it.
The right-wing opposition (led by a former merchant banker) voted against it. As a result, their popularity rating is only slightly higher than the paedophile/arsonist they just caught.
The old school conservatives (Wm. Buckley’s generation)
had little faith in humanity, and didn’t pretend
to feel any other way. They didn’t believe in spending
on social programs because, frankly, they didn’t think
anybody of any importance would be lost if a large
portion of the public slipped through the nonexistent
social safety net.
The problem with assholes like Brooks is that they have
the same disdain for most of humanity, but lack the
damn balls to just come out and say so.
David Brooks from 6 years ago would totally beat the hell out of David Brooks today.
i’m not sure because brooks has changed, appearance wise, since high school,
but i think i used to take his lunch money. he was a dork then, too.
hey, brooks is awesome! this article totally reminded me of this movie i saw called, “birth of a nation”! it’s really famous and totally iconic.
p.s. “primitive”? dude needs to be more careful, lest he appear “colonial”.
[re=243661]ManchuCandidate[/re]: You’re on a roll today. You earned a good weekend.
[re=243663]shortsshortsshorts[/re]: She sells seashells by the sad shit-shack?
[re=243716]cranky[/re]: That was my favorite part of High School. My professor (who was probably in the klan) showed that movie to my class, and there was a question he could not answer.
“Do you know that this movie is racist in many ways?”
His answer:
“Yes, but this is for a history class.”
“That doesn’t answer the question.”
“Well you need to ignore those elements.”
“What? A white dude painted black just raped a white chick?”
……………. dumbfounded silence ………………
[re=243690]Internally valid[/re]: My favorite David Brooks picture.
(H/T Driftglass)
~
[re=243674]Scandalabra[/re]: It’s called a preemptive strike. Because that’s known to work so very well.
Man, Brook’s column today was totes unreadable. I imagine his editors come out of their offices scratching their heads, their eyes crossed and their glasses all cock-eyed on their heads saying “WTF?”
HA HA HA “this magical sack of rats”. Brooks’ picture on his stupid page is soooo pastel, it looks like his Gran tinted it for him and gave him a dab of lip color and blush like in the old tymes. What a fucking turd.
[re=243650]Trace[/re]: That’s not the Future History I was taught in school!
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/1992/dunlap.htm
“We don’t actually read him, just saw a headline or summary somewhere.)”
Jim may be young, but at least he has wisdom.
[re=243664]chascates[/re]: “Senate has 58 votes for the stimulus package; needs 2 more to pass.”
How maddening is this? Need I repeat: Let. Them. Filibuster. Since the Rs are talking on behalf of real Americans, let them go all Mr. Smith on the senate’s ass.
[re=243753]Bearbloke[/re]: I got as far as General Brutus and then I knew this was going to be painful.
I especially like the parts where future man will mention events that happened in the past (IN THE FUTURE!) to his friend, and then follows it with “Remember that?”
“Then remember how so and so said, ‘blah blah blah?’ Remember that? Yeah, that sure did happen.”
[re=243664]chascates[/re]: Fooled you. At least two of the likely senatorial prospects are female.
[re=243807]Trace[/re]: Ahem… Attention, People of Earth:
An unauthorized breach of Future History has been committed by an alternate-universe “[re=243753]Bearbloke[/re]“.
To correct the disruption to this time-stream, please look deeply into the
Neuralyzer for 30 seconds, then proceed on to learn The Truth™.
Remain Calm. Shop as normal.
[re=243667]Numbat Dundee[/re]: OUCH!! That’s “feigned”, not “fained”. Please! We are Liberals here, and Liberals can mostly spell, right?
One of these days I’m going to go batshit, and attempt to demonstrate the difference between “reigns” and “reins”. Yes, there is one.
Cognitive scientists distinguish between normal risk-assessment decisions, which activate the reward-prediction regions of the brain, and decisions made amid extreme uncertainty, which generate activity in the amygdala.
I canz write 4 the Gray Lady!
Let me rub my crystal ball now…. I see …. I see Brooks and Diane Warwick teaming up for a new psychic late night TV show which will cause me to throw what is left of my drink at that very same TV there-by causing me to go and buy a new one which will stimulate the economy. Maybe that is the Republican plan????
[re=243867]iolanthe[/re]: Oh thank god, please do — that reigns-reins thing has been driving me nuts and it’s EVERYWHERE.
Leeches and bleeding for everyone! I think perchance that may be Dame Noonington’s prescription for a health care plan for the peasants.
[re=243904]HuddledMass[/re]: There they’re their, sweetie. Don’t get all het up.
[re=243867]iolanthe[/re]: Yes. As in the reign in Spane phalls Mainely on the plane.
[re=243904]HuddledMass[/re]: But their’s still “rains” rite? Are you going to also correct the Diane Warwick reference?
I find the paragraph of Brooks’ cited hilarious (in fact, the column in general), in the context that it is a damning indictment of Milton Friedman/Austrian Economics and neoliberalism in general (a la BBC documentary The Trap–look it up!), yet we won’t see Brooks say anything like that outright because it is heresy in America.
Thus, we are left with his incomprehensible technobabble and a vague and blameless notion that Americans have adopted a terrible societal model in which government is no longer permitted to try to solve problems even when it is desperately needed. Hooray for pundidts!
Clearly Ms. Brooks wants to make sweet man-love to Obama, with whom he was obviously and grudgingly enamored during the presidential race. He’s so torn between that and his need to pirouette in his lacy “conservative intellectual” leotard and tutu in front of his fellow wingers. It’s a terrible thing to watch—the almost imperceptible speech impediment, the constant adjusting of the glasses, the nervous and self-disparaging smiles and head bobs. His blood vessels aren’t tough enough for Limbaugh-style apoplexy; his very mild inclinations toward integrity make it hard for him to say much of anything in a loud and clear voice right now, given his political affiliations. Poor suffering nerd.
Comments on this entry are closed.