David Brooks Embarrases Himself Again
Lately I have noticed that New York Times conservative columnist David Brooks' columns are becoming more and more, I don't know, what is the word I'm looking for? Oh, that's right--RETARDED. You expect a columnist, even one as mousy and catchphrase-obsessed as David Brooks to take a position and go with it, even if the position is really, really weak, as dear David's frequently are. He is responsible for coining the term "bobo" to refer to middle and upper-middle class suburban pseudo-hippies. It is something that could stand to be defined, for sure, but "bobo?" I cringe every time I hear that word and can't really bring myself to say it, because it was invented by David Brooks to describe not-very-interesting voting tendencies and lifestyles. After the election last fall he really got into using the term "exurb" to describe those lovely communities that are a great way for contractors to line their pockets by gratuitiously extending urban sprawl beyond all imagination. Stealing farmland, bird habitats and whatever else gets in their way in the process. Was Brooks describing the terrible environmental and social consequences of such unchecked development? Well, of course not! He wanted all us liberals out there to know that the good people populating these Wal-Mart sponsored monstrosities hate us, because we are all elitists who don't care enough about their tiresome and extremely conservative values! God, can everyone please shut up about anyone to the left of Hitler being "elitist?" It's kind of hard for the Democrats to appeal to these people--because they are conservative! We are not, and we're not getting many exurban votes. Not because we are elitist, but because their "values (Jesus, I've come to despise that word)" are in conflict with ours, you smug little prick!
All right, now that I have that out of my system I'll get to the topic at hand. David has really outdone himself with today's column. Remember what I said about having a firm position? Conservatives love firm positions, right? Today's column is titled "Roe's Birth, and Death." So what's he getting at?
"Justice Harry Blackmun did more inadvertent damage to our democracy than any other 20th-century American. When he and his Supreme Court colleagues issued the Roe v. Wade decision, they set off a cycle of political viciousness and counter-viciousness that has poisoned public life ever since, and now threatens to destroy the Senate as we know it."
Does he dislike Roe v. Wade, or the "viciousness" it set off in America? He goes on to bemoan the fact that the abortion issue was taken out of the state legislatures:
"Instead, Blackmun and his concurring colleagues invented a right to abortion, and imposed a solution more extreme than the policies of just about any other comparable nation."
Okay, so they invented it. As a constitutional scholar and expert on the 14th amendment, Brooks makes a compelling point here. Oh, wait...maybe not.
"Religious conservatives became alienated from their own government, feeling that their democratic rights had been usurped by robed elitists."
Oh, those poor fundamentalists! OF COURSE they felt their rights had been usurped by elitists, that is their signature complaint. A lot of the same people felt the same way when civil rights was the issue, and no one will ever rationalize that fact away. Uppity negroes and elitist judges are out to ruin the country, right? Here is another astute observation:
"Liberals lost touch with working-class Americans because they never had to have a conversation about values with those voters; they could just rely on the courts to impose their views."
Oh shit, the judges appointed Democrats to Congress? What an outrage! What's that? Oh, this just in--those liberals were elected, you fucking moron! Do you even read what you write? But what to make of this next bit?
"Dozens of groups on the right and left have been created to destroy nominees who might oppose their side of the fight. But abortion is never the explicit subject of these confirmation battles. Instead, the groups try to find some other pretext to destroy their foes."
Okay, so now we are back to bitching about the "poisonous atmosphere" of politics today. Shame on you, Congress!
"Every few years another civilizing custom is breached. Over the past four years Democrats have resorted to the filibuster again and again to prevent votes on judicial nominees they oppose. Up until now, minorities have generally not used the filibuster to defeat nominees that have majority support. They have allowed nominees to have an up or down vote. But this tradition has been washed away."
Man, it's too bad the civilizing custom of taking it up the ass from the majority may be washed away, like so much shit in the toilet of life. If David says the filibuster is bad, then it should be done away with immediately. It is the only way. But oh, what is this?
"In response, Republicans now threaten to change the Senate rules and end the filibuster on judicial nominees. That they have a right to do this is certain. That doing this would destroy the culture of the Senate and damage the cause of limited government is also certain."
But, damn, the filibuster is a paragon of limited government, and it would be a shame to lose that. Maybe we'll just have to accept that some of Bush's nominees are too radical and he'll just have to make do with the other, measly 95 percent he had confirmed last year. David feels so strongly about necessity of the filibuster, he really gets on a roll! Shit, this getts better and better!
"The Senate operates by precedent, trust and unanimous consent. Changing the rules by raw majority power would rip the fabric of Senate life. Once the filibuster was barred from judicial nomination fights, it would be barred entirely. Every time the majority felt passionately about an issue, it would rewrite the rules to make its legislation easier to pass. Before long, the Senate would be just like the House. The culture of deliberation would be voided. Minority rights would be unprotected.
Those who believe in smaller government would suffer most. Minority rights have been used frequently to stop expansions of federal power, but if those minority rights were weakened, the federal role would grow and grow - especially when Democrats regained the majority."
We must keep the filibuster, then. Especially because those filibustering Democrats might regain power one day and go on rampage, in which laws will be ameded to allow the rape and molestation of all exurban tykes and teenagers! The end of the column is approaching, so David is about to expand on this point and sum up his thoughts on the unfortunate poisonous atmosphere of government and the unfortunate necessity of the filibuster, even though those robed elitists invented the right to an abortion:
"The fact is, the entire country is trapped. Harry Blackmun and his colleagues suppressed that democratic abortion debate the nation needs to have. The poisons have been building ever since. You can complain about the incivility of politics, but you can't stop the escalation of conflict in the middle. You have to kill it at the root. Unless Roe v. Wade is overturned, politics will never get better."
No one better to kill the foot fungus that is the universal right to abortion at the root than your beloved Republicans, who will make sure those sanity-challenged judges can begin their self-stated march toward ending abortion! These brave Republicans will do this by...KILLING THE FILIBUSTER you love so much!
I have to lay down now, David, you are giving me a headache. Or is it the chimp you trained to write your columns who is responsible for my pounding head? It's a fucking mystery.
PS: This morning my lovely coworker S went around and told everyone in the office that she read in the paper that two of her female students (clients, basically) had a commitment ceremony this past weekend: "There was a picture in the paper of them kissing! Ewwww! Oh my god! Oh, here comes the janitor, let me go tell him!" She then told us proudly that her mother had received such a nice card from President Bush, thanking the nice, generic, boring, predictably Christian and conservative old hag for being such a financially helpful supporter! Ooooh, and it was actually signed by W--THE PRESIDENT himself! Not a copy!!!!
Gag me, dumbass. Oh, she also tells Pollock jokes. Great gal.
All right, now that I have that out of my system I'll get to the topic at hand. David has really outdone himself with today's column. Remember what I said about having a firm position? Conservatives love firm positions, right? Today's column is titled "Roe's Birth, and Death." So what's he getting at?
"Justice Harry Blackmun did more inadvertent damage to our democracy than any other 20th-century American. When he and his Supreme Court colleagues issued the Roe v. Wade decision, they set off a cycle of political viciousness and counter-viciousness that has poisoned public life ever since, and now threatens to destroy the Senate as we know it."
Does he dislike Roe v. Wade, or the "viciousness" it set off in America? He goes on to bemoan the fact that the abortion issue was taken out of the state legislatures:
"Instead, Blackmun and his concurring colleagues invented a right to abortion, and imposed a solution more extreme than the policies of just about any other comparable nation."
Okay, so they invented it. As a constitutional scholar and expert on the 14th amendment, Brooks makes a compelling point here. Oh, wait...maybe not.
"Religious conservatives became alienated from their own government, feeling that their democratic rights had been usurped by robed elitists."
Oh, those poor fundamentalists! OF COURSE they felt their rights had been usurped by elitists, that is their signature complaint. A lot of the same people felt the same way when civil rights was the issue, and no one will ever rationalize that fact away. Uppity negroes and elitist judges are out to ruin the country, right? Here is another astute observation:
"Liberals lost touch with working-class Americans because they never had to have a conversation about values with those voters; they could just rely on the courts to impose their views."
Oh shit, the judges appointed Democrats to Congress? What an outrage! What's that? Oh, this just in--those liberals were elected, you fucking moron! Do you even read what you write? But what to make of this next bit?
"Dozens of groups on the right and left have been created to destroy nominees who might oppose their side of the fight. But abortion is never the explicit subject of these confirmation battles. Instead, the groups try to find some other pretext to destroy their foes."
Okay, so now we are back to bitching about the "poisonous atmosphere" of politics today. Shame on you, Congress!
"Every few years another civilizing custom is breached. Over the past four years Democrats have resorted to the filibuster again and again to prevent votes on judicial nominees they oppose. Up until now, minorities have generally not used the filibuster to defeat nominees that have majority support. They have allowed nominees to have an up or down vote. But this tradition has been washed away."
Man, it's too bad the civilizing custom of taking it up the ass from the majority may be washed away, like so much shit in the toilet of life. If David says the filibuster is bad, then it should be done away with immediately. It is the only way. But oh, what is this?
"In response, Republicans now threaten to change the Senate rules and end the filibuster on judicial nominees. That they have a right to do this is certain. That doing this would destroy the culture of the Senate and damage the cause of limited government is also certain."
But, damn, the filibuster is a paragon of limited government, and it would be a shame to lose that. Maybe we'll just have to accept that some of Bush's nominees are too radical and he'll just have to make do with the other, measly 95 percent he had confirmed last year. David feels so strongly about necessity of the filibuster, he really gets on a roll! Shit, this getts better and better!
"The Senate operates by precedent, trust and unanimous consent. Changing the rules by raw majority power would rip the fabric of Senate life. Once the filibuster was barred from judicial nomination fights, it would be barred entirely. Every time the majority felt passionately about an issue, it would rewrite the rules to make its legislation easier to pass. Before long, the Senate would be just like the House. The culture of deliberation would be voided. Minority rights would be unprotected.
Those who believe in smaller government would suffer most. Minority rights have been used frequently to stop expansions of federal power, but if those minority rights were weakened, the federal role would grow and grow - especially when Democrats regained the majority."
We must keep the filibuster, then. Especially because those filibustering Democrats might regain power one day and go on rampage, in which laws will be ameded to allow the rape and molestation of all exurban tykes and teenagers! The end of the column is approaching, so David is about to expand on this point and sum up his thoughts on the unfortunate poisonous atmosphere of government and the unfortunate necessity of the filibuster, even though those robed elitists invented the right to an abortion:
"The fact is, the entire country is trapped. Harry Blackmun and his colleagues suppressed that democratic abortion debate the nation needs to have. The poisons have been building ever since. You can complain about the incivility of politics, but you can't stop the escalation of conflict in the middle. You have to kill it at the root. Unless Roe v. Wade is overturned, politics will never get better."
No one better to kill the foot fungus that is the universal right to abortion at the root than your beloved Republicans, who will make sure those sanity-challenged judges can begin their self-stated march toward ending abortion! These brave Republicans will do this by...KILLING THE FILIBUSTER you love so much!
I have to lay down now, David, you are giving me a headache. Or is it the chimp you trained to write your columns who is responsible for my pounding head? It's a fucking mystery.
PS: This morning my lovely coworker S went around and told everyone in the office that she read in the paper that two of her female students (clients, basically) had a commitment ceremony this past weekend: "There was a picture in the paper of them kissing! Ewwww! Oh my god! Oh, here comes the janitor, let me go tell him!" She then told us proudly that her mother had received such a nice card from President Bush, thanking the nice, generic, boring, predictably Christian and conservative old hag for being such a financially helpful supporter! Ooooh, and it was actually signed by W--THE PRESIDENT himself! Not a copy!!!!
Gag me, dumbass. Oh, she also tells Pollock jokes. Great gal.
posted by Veronica @ 11:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home