Comments on: David Brooks has Gone Completely Mad

By: serial catowner

serial catowner — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:58:29 +0000

Mildly reminiscent of Stephen Potter…….”But not in the South!”

By: Michael Otsuka

Michael Otsuka — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:48:44 +0000

When Nixon nominated the unimpressive Judge Harrold Carswell to fill a seat on the Supreme Court, Senator Hruska offered the following ringing endorsement: “Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance? We can’t have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters, and stuff like that there.” So give the guy a chance. We can’t have all Krugmans, and, er, Krugmans, and Krugmans.

By: HP

HP — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:03:24 +0000

Wasn’t a member of the guild. Bastards. As you know, no two members of SAG can share the same name. (PDF, §15) Apparently, there’s already a SAG member named King Abdullah of Jordan, so he would have had to change his name to “King Abdullah J. O’Jordan” in order to get the screen credit.

By: blah

blah — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:47:31 +0000

Brooks is wrong from the very first sentence: Deep at the end of every election campaign, after all the issues have been beaten to death, when only the blowhards are still thundering, attention turns to the outcome. Who is going to win this thing already? Attention is obsessively focused on the outcome from the get go. If he is going to write drivel, he can at least make it jibe with reality.

By: Bragan

Bragan — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:14:32 +0000

Apologia Brooks: Wise men know that Bobo knows nothing.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:06:36 +0000

Or even better—how about the best of all possible worlds: a brute with a democratic mob behind him, and behind them, a secret council of plutocrats pulling everyone’s strings? That was the most concise summary of the Republican Party’s 2004 election platform I’ve seen so far.

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:22:16 +0000

Your charitable explanation is right on. What’s a conservative of some intelligence and some principles to do with a guy like Bush? Best not to talk about it. Speaking of Art Buchwald, is Mark Russel still alive?

By: abb1

abb1 — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:20:17 +0000

…and his shock at discovering he was on a tv set and not a ship Nah, this is a malicious smear. The king is smart and merciful and gentle. His kingdom is peaceful and prosperous, his subjects are happy. And it’s utterly disgusting that they didn’t allow him to have any lines in that show – what harm would that do? Wasn’t a member of the guild. Bastards.

By: stephan

stephan — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:14:27 +0000

I don’t normallly read Brooks but I perceive his caricature of presidential election pundits as quite accurate. There are a bunch of people talking like this in Ireland at the moment. Are there none in America?

By: Thomas

Thomas — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:49:49 +0000

I think it’s a fine column. Especially considering the alternatives for partisans this week. For example, Dionne’s column in the WaPost, combining “insights” from polling data with “arguments” for his chosen position. It isn’t persuasive in the least, and doesn’t even attempt to make me smile.

By: koreyel

koreyel — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:34:59 +0000

Concatenate a quote in regard to King Fraudulla: From tvtome— “King Abdullah is a huge Star Trek fan and often enters forums under an alias to have a good discussion. He had one role in Star Trek: Voyager, but had no lines due to the fact that he wasn’t a member of the screen actors guild… and his shock at discovering he was on a tv set and not a ship.” Would you rather be ruled by a stupid king or a stupid public? Which is worse: a brute or a mob? Or even better—how about the best of all possible worlds: a brute with a democratic mob behind him, and behind them, a secret council of plutocrats pulling everyone’s strings? Now that’s what I call “social entropy in action.”

By: Josh Canel

Josh Canel — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:05:11 +0000

Indeed. I rarely read Brooks (the glosses from blogs seem to be enough), but the Nietzsche reference peaked my interest. Much to my chagrin, not only was the Nietzsche reference completely gratuitous, but it was whole column about how other people understand polling better than he does. Therefore, polls are worthless. And he gets paid for this? B-list bloggers do a better job.

By: J. Ellenberg

J. Ellenberg — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:55:44 +0000

When I was a little kid, Art Buchwald and Erma Bombeck were my favorite things in the whole newspaper. I wonder if there are little kids now who love David Brooks?

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:36:42 +0000

Art Buchwald was actually sometimes funny.

By: raj

raj — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:23:39 +0000

You actually bother reading Brooks’s bloviations? You have too much time on your hands. And, quite frankly, the NYTimes has too much allocation of newsprint, if it publishes his columns.