Most of the interesting news today was generated by a presidential press conference —
Obama Promises to Try Closing Guantánamo Again
Obama cautions against rush to action in Syria
Permission Structure: Getting deals done with congressional Republicans
Elsewhere: Jonathan Chait has a critique of a David Brooks column. I don’t have the strength to make it through a Brooks column today, but Chait says —
The latest offensive, or counter-offensive, in the passive-aggressive Cold War between David Brooks and Paul Krugman has taken the form of an entire Brooks column not very subtly lambasting Krugman as a tired partisan hack while justifying his own work as thoughtful, elevated, and intellectually independent. It’s unfortunately muddled and self-serving in a way that obscures some pretty important questions about how political commentators ought to do their job.
If Chait’s description is accurate, Brooks may have produced one of the purest samples of distilled bullshit of all time.
The structure already exists and the Sandy vote is the blueprint. In that case, Republican House members from NY, NJ, and most of the FL and CA Republicans said a loud no to the Tea Party types. Ten if the twelve Republican House members from NY and NJ earn Progressive Punch scores of at least 20% on crucial votes this session and others from more moderate states are also amenable. Many state legislatures and town councils have formed alliances between a handful of Republicans and all the Democrats to get things done.
The Senate can go back to the old rules requiring an actual fillibuster to halt business. They can do it, as the Republicans made clear, at any time.
The Brooks column is worth a look, if you’re into that sort of thing. Come to think of it, there could even be a Zen angle to it. There’s this whole very dubious distinction that he sets up between political commentators who are detached and those who are engaged. Detachment and engagement. You could do all kinds of interesting things with that, but of course Brooks doesn’t.
What’s with the gender assignments in Brook’s column..I expected him to break out into a Billy Joel song…”But she’s always a woman to me”.
My respect for Obama for having the courage to stand for what’s right for America..Maybe America overall is too stupid to understand the value he’s trying to protect.
maha,
That Brooks column isn’t just BS.
It is the purest distillation of “Projection,” ever to be printed.
Also too – probably “Penis Envy,” and ‘Cojones Envy,’ and “Mom always liked you best.”
Also three – shorter Bobo: ‘Why can’t I, me, myself, be be treated with the love and respect that Paul Krugman is?’
‘Cause you’re a hack, Davey.
Krugman ain’t.
You’re a shill for the richest of the rich grifters, Bobo – and people have more respect for the grifters, who usually actually have to have some ability, than their shills, who have none – except as shills, for whatever that’s worth. And, in your case, with the mansion you just bought, apparently you’re worth quite a bit, for a simple shill.
Hell, people have more respect for the male and female hookers working by the tunnels entrances and exits, ’cause they actually work for their money, and don’t get paid for just sitting around, opining – and pining for days that never were.
Also four – Bobo could have ended that bit of projection, by quoting the great Pete Townshend, and said, “I know what it feels like to be a woman.”
Today, if it’s even possible, after having read that, I have even less regard for him than I ever did before.
It is like the Matt Taibbi takedown of Thomas Friedman — you know he’s right, and you wonder why everybody else doesn’t get it.
I loathe the smell of overcooked Cabbage in the morning.
Well, I should’ve waited a bit before reading the Brooks column. Sometimes when I read his columns, I pretend I am a teacher in junior high school grading a paper. I put a fresh point on my red pencil, just for him.
Now, I freely admit that David Brooks is a LOT smarter than I am and a lot better educated. So I assume that when he presents some howling non sequiter or some other piece of vacuous tripe in the place of the logical underpinning of his piece, he knows exactly what he is doing. In fact, I think that is precisely his talent. I know people who have a lot of respect for David Brooks, that again, are a lot smarter, etc, than I am. Somehow they seem to glide over the absurd logic and sonorous horse manure without absorbing how condescendingly vapid it is. Brooks is the master of disguising unalloyed hackery as objective analysis. In doing this he certainly earns every cent of his salary.
“The detached writer might become irrelevant, ignored at both ends.” Seeing that Mr. Brooks sees himself as “the detached writer”, there is still hope.
goatherd — David Brooks is not smarter than you are. No way, no how.
goatherd: I don’t know about your education, but I can assure you that David Brooks is not as smart as you are, or anybody else who’s likely to read this comment for that matter. That’s part of the problem here–you’ve got a man of middling intelligence, at best, trying to pose as a deep thinker and falling flat on his face.
I mean if you want to compare who’s a better columnist, Krugman or Brooks, it isn’t just about detached or engaged, it’s also about the fact that Krugman is vastly and incomparably more intelligent than Brooks. Which means that he’s much more likely to be right even if he does care who wins elections.
Brooks is the master of disguising unalloyed hackery as objective analysis.
That was my sense of it also. Like he was above the fray,unsoiled by passion. He cleaves to the supposed achievement of being a detached writer while exposing himself as just another hireling. Shit or get off the pot?
goatherd…I wouldn’t make that concession either..Brook’s might be more proficient at expressing himself through writing only because that’s his chosen vocation and where he’s devoted his efforts. There’s nothing I’ve heard from Brooks that would cause me to put my head down.