For example, my own Brooks Ratio, since I feel my anger growing when reading roughly two out of seven Brooks columns, is 0.29. I can live with that. But I'd be curious to see how others deal with the problem.

My Brooks ratio is 0. I almost always agree with David Brooks.

T.A. Frank wrote: "He's often quite good, honestly."

No, he is not. He's a thoroughly dishonest and corrupt bullshit artist and a bought-and-paid-for shill for the most extreme right-wing elements of America's ultra-rich corporate ruling class.

"He's often quite good, honestly."

Have you applied for a job in the Bush administration, becuse it's that "honestly" that takes you to Brownie status.

Yikes. My Brooks Ratio is 1. I don't think he's "quite good" at all, and he pretty much always annoys me. The fact that he tries to present his views in social-science-y terms is probably the worst of it for me, because if he were a social scientist instead of a pundit, his methods would get him laughed out of the room (mostly anecdotal evidence, N's of 1, etc.)

Brooks is "centrist Democrat"???
I'm calling bullshit.

Try "Republican White House Ass-Kissing Clown"

Since he is behind the NYT money wall, I read only excerpts on blogs, and that's not likely to be a good sample, since it's the stuff that infuriates the bloggers. His book on Bobos was okay but lightweight.

Brooks is what is known as a reasonable liar. That is, good enough to fool himself and others. He's not a hateful person like most WSJ opinion writers, and he is quite witty. But all that does is put sugar on the poison.

Bobo is so cute, and he make wittle Ally-kins feel so Special! He has such a nice, simplistic view of the world, it is so very appealing to Al!

I think of Brooks as a niche operative. His good columns and his non-Republican are like loss-leaders -- part of his job is establishing credibility.At crunch time he's a partisan Republican. He appeals to various people who a.) are suckers for a slick, well-packaged argument, b.) think there's something wrong with being partisan, and/or c.) are fairly conservative but are embarassed by the Republican loonies.

But when the chips are down, Brooks is just a Republican. On TV on election night 2004 he reliably repeated the Republican talking points.

They're all running for cover (aka claiming to be Democrats) now. It's complete B.S.

I don't get the Times so my only exposure to Brooks is via quoted columns which could skew the results, but I've never seen a Brooks column in which he wasn't a fatuous, nasty ijut.

If David Brooks is a centrist democrat I'll eat my shoe. David Brooks is not a centrist. David Brooks is a neo-con. David Brooks is an authoritarian, obsessed with the infalibility of The Leader. And, lest we forget David Brooks thinks that Republicans will quite literally breed their way into a permanent majority. (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10610F73F550C748CDDAB0994DC404482)

I don't understand why he has any credibility at all. And no, I don't think he's "quite good." What crap.

sounds like Brooks is jumping the Dem bandwagon - don't want to be out of touch with whatever's popular with the peoples these days - but knows his heart isn't in it.

f him

"I have to admit it: I read pretty much every David Brooks column. He's often quite good, honestly."

Shorter T.A. Frank: My fondness for utter crap has no effect on my ability to judge who is a good columnist.

Brooks always shows a lack of understanding for the reality of what it is like to be a working class American. After all, he is a New York intellecual who went to the University of Chicago. The circles he travels in are far removed from the reality of most people in the US. For example, his support of evangelicals overlooks reality. In the South, where evangelicals dominate, there are higher rates of divorce, STDs, murder, poverty, infant mortality, poverty and any number of other social pathologies. Yet, Brooks looks to them as some beacon of morality. He and the WSJ support elitism and do as much as possible to make those on the bottom to believe it does not exist.

Since Mr. Drum brought up 'centrism' a couple of days ago I realized my position on Israel is centrist. Israel must abandon all of its settlements outside of the 1947 UN Partition and recognize the right to self-determination of Palestinians in all the other territory that used to be known as Palestine. The US should end all military and economic aid to Israel until these conditions are met.

David Brooks lies when he says he is a Democrat. People who take him seriously must have an inability to think critically and make reasonably quick conclusions when confronted with wealthy corporate logic.

I quite reading Brooks a long time ago. No useful information, and it infuriates me that such a jerk could get published.

Brooks obviously does not represent the "most extreme right-wing elements..." blah-de-blah of which some have accused him, and neither is he "often quite good." He is a hack, plain and simple, who constantly relies on pseudo-sociological generalizations to bolster a kind of center-right populist viewpoint.

He's known as a conservative that liberals can love, but all the liberals I know consider him to be a joke. His columns aren't so much bad as devoid of meaningful content.

I have found that for me it's best not to read David Brooks. His smug certainty in taking ridiculous positions gives me a headache.

Brooks is a reliable mouthpiece for the Republican party. He has his talking points, and he delivers them. That's his job, and he's good at it.

Somebody here or on Kos once characterized Brooks' writing as "comfort prose for Republican men with Democratic wives." That pretty much hit the nail on the head. T.A., are you by chance one or the other?

Why is it necessary to devote two posts in a row to tell us what all of us already know regarding Brooks and Will?

Too much self-referential drivel is not good for journalists.

I like the spoken David Brooks more than the written David Brooks. He comes across as lighter and funnier when interviewed. Still, his columns have been interesting over the last year for their gradual leftward drift. I have been waiting for today's declaration for some time. I think he has further to go.

Isn't it interesting that he joins Rush Limbaugh in a sense of relief after the election?

"does not know the working class"

But, he has said he takes occasional safaris to Wal-Mart.

And I have learned to stay away from Jim Lehrer on Friday evenings when he tries his "centrist" schtck.

David Brooks is a Democrat the same way as Mickey Kaus: declares it just enough to suspend disbelief in the gullible.

I haven't read a Brooks column in a couple of years -- has he admitted his stupidity in voting for an incompetent mediocrity for president? That he supported an immoral war of choice that was a stupid idea to begin with, regardless of its execution? That his "bobo" formulation is shallow, uninformative and right out of the Republican playbook?

Puh-lease, T.A. He's a partisan hack.

Brooks' populism is just a sly trick. He's about as populist as Bill Buckley or Prince Charles, but he plays the cliche "elitist Democrat" card on a regular basis.

I deal with Brooks by not reading him. I respect an opposing view where the arguments are well-constructed. But with Brooks, he's too knowingly dishonest. Go back and skim his earlier columns - last fall, or especially 2002-03, and you'll see what I mean.

I only ingest Brooks via a weekly doss of the Jim Lehrer Newshour. Luckily for my TV I've often had a beer or two by then, so when I give in to the desire to chuck an object at Brooks' head I usually miss. But listening to Brooks opine about the Iraq War has made me a regular customer at Best Buy.

Brooks ratio ~1.5.

Brooks is a buffoon. A smug and irritating court jester to the Hamptons/Martha's Vineyard people.

I've stopped reading him out of a sensible regard for my blood pressure, although I am regularly amused at the way reading his drivel makes Dean Baker go practically ballistic over his glib serial misrepresentations.

The put-downs are classic.

I find Brooks to be a much more pleasant & informative read than his colleague lil Tommy 'Does my mustache put me in touch with the common man? I think it does' Friedman.

But, that would put Brooks' writing in line with 99% of the rest of humanity.

As for his on-camera punditry, he is an attractive man, but that's about it for his noble qualities.

It has been said before: The only columnist worth a crap at NYT is Dr. Krugman. The rest, well, the rest are Exhibit A in what is very wrong with the American press.

Thank God for TimeSelect

Best $45 I will never spend in my life.

Addendum- Frank Rich is OK, too. Telling that a theatre critic has more understanding than most of their editorial staff.

You know, I disagreed with the commentator who wrote that the K-Drum replacements were crap. As long as Amy Sullivan is where she belongs, at a shitty mag like TNR, then the WM replacements are fine.

But this post by TA Frank changes my mind. First off, it is contentless: It is not about any issue or event or policy. It's about TA Frank creating a stupid Bobo-esque term, a "Brooks Ratio", to make the brilliant point that one can keep track of how often one likes Brooks and quantify it. We can count and divide--this is news?

Secondly, Brooks is total garbage. In his book "Bobos in Paradise", after extensively quoting other people as his way of defending his prized Bobos, he explicitly admits that, well, all the criticisms leveled at them are true. This is when I literally threw the book across the room. He writes a book about a made-up group of people (Earth to David Brooks, bobos are yuppies), and then as your defense against criticism that they are shallow and materialistic, you say that it's true, but that it's ok because they are nice people? Well done.

Recently I got an email from a friend asking me if I wanted to join him to see Brooks talk at a local college. I told him I would go, but to heckle him. I was serious. Actually, after reading this, I might go and do just that. Does anyone want to join me?

Mitch

"David Brooks is a centrist Democrat."

hahhahhahahahahaha!!!!!!

Thanks for the good laugh.

But Secular guy said it better!

Finally posted to the correct thread!

I have to admit it: I read pretty much every David Brooks column. He's often quite good, honestly.

You're kidding, right? Wrong on both counts: He isn't good often, and it isn't honestly.

Brooks declares ($) himself to be, in effect, a centrist Democrat, although he concludes with an appeal to Republicans: “[W]e disaffected voters are easy. We want to go home with you if you’ll give us a reason.”

Centrist Democrats are such sluts.

How do I deal with the problem? I loath and ignore him as much as possible. He's an even more infuriating egotist and intellectualy dishonest opportunist than Friedman.

my brooks ratio used to be 1, and now it is effectively so, because he is one of three reasons I refuse to pay for timesSelect. I can afford only so much high blood pressure, so I choose to spend it elsewhere rather than reading bobo.

I love the Wall Street Journal. It is too bad it has that idiotic editorial page destroying its reputation every day. I would think that Dow Jones shareholders wouldn't want their crown jewel being destroyed by the intentional ignorance of the editorial page, but there's plenty of evidence that being rich and connected doesn't necessarily make you smart.

I read 50% of the comments here and found agreeing with 100% of them. In fact, every one of them had a very interesting metaphor on the fake intellectual polish Brooks brings to his rather pathetic untenable and often contradictory (to reality, besides being inconsistent) positions, regardless of how politely they are stated. In fact, what he has going for him is the lack of bombast of the well-known radioheads; he lacks the wearily charming way world-wisdom(ha) is imparted by a New York Times flat-earther - he is a journeyman with reasonable prose which appeals to a fence sitter masquerading as an unbiased newsman, namely Lehrer. Well, this commentary fits the subject rather aptly.

What I want to know is how much Friedman to (f)read.

Honestly, I think it is safe to say if you read one "broken pottery" scenario there is no need to invest in Times Select. Friedman is like an artist gone mad with the need to paint his own self portrait over and over again, still trying to get it right. Surely Friedman would have be failed blogger in real world.

Brooks is what is known as a reasonable liar. That is, good enough to fool himself and others. He's not a hateful person like most WSJ opinion writers, and he is quite witty. But all that does is put sugar on the poison.
Posted by: cosmici on November 30, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

This about sums up my view. I read his colums to look for clues into where the conservative propaganda machine will attempt to fool us next. Everything he says is suspect and comes from an intention to keep we the people in line and 'thinking' correctly. My question is how he can live with himself. He would only ever become interesting if he had a road to Damascus moment and became a bold liberal attacking all his former conservative heros. The guy who runs media matters is interesting. Brooks is just the banality of everyday evil.

I think Brooks is pretty good--compared, that is, to George Will and Charles Krauthammer. You know, just like Idi Amin is pretty good compared to Hitler, Stalin and Atilla the Hun. And all of the forementioned are pretty good compared to Ann Coulter.

But seriously, Brooks has the same fatal flaw as Thomas Friedman. They both think their notoriety as columnists qualifies them to propose global suggestions for handling problems as in Iraq, but their solutions are all one dimensional--just like the Neocons. Heaven forbid anyone take them seriously. I liked the way a Saudi Prince put it recently: you solve one problem and create five new ones.

Ok, Kevin Challenge time.

Please provide links to 5 good david brooks columns in a 7 column period.Or, to give you leeway, a 10 column period.

If you want to take the weasly way, just give 5 good david brooks column in the past 5 years. That would still raise my opinion of David Brooks, who is currently sitting at a cool 100% for republican hack in my book.

when brooksie was at the u of c, his column in the school paper was frequently amusing, even though his targets tended to be friends of mine (their sanctimony was an easy target). now he is unintentionally funny, especially when he dons his "social scientific" cap--it strikes me that he suffers from an inferiority complex 'cause he never went to grad school, hence his tendency to overly broad generalization to the point where he just makes stuff up. in the sorry domain of what passes for conservative commentary he is considered even handed. though that is not saying much, he did write a decent column last week about RFK and greek tragedy (can't get away from the Greeks if you go to the U of C), though one would wish that he would employ such a tragic imagination with regards to our debacle in iraq. it's that last step, that inability, that i find so frustrating with brooksie. that and his deference to folks like the Straussians and Federalist Society which probably started when he was here in Chicago as well (ah, to sup at the Olin Foundation trough must be highlight of a conservative pundit these days).

I have to admit it: I read pretty much every David Brooks column. He's often quite good, honestly.

HAHAAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Great parody.

裸体图片 美女自拍 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 成人小说 偷拍走光 美眉图片 人体写真 性虐待电影 写真集 激情电影 免费影院 日本av电影 美少女贴图 性感美女图片 美女写真 漂亮妹妹图片 同志电影 性交姿势 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 性变态图片 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 激情论坛 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 美腿图片 三级片 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴图 美女乳房 性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装图片 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 看免费电影 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 两性写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 美女脱衣电影 裸体美女 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水图片 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 强奸图片 色情图片 黄色小说 黄色电影 强暴电影 乱伦图片 轮奸电影 迷奸电影 夜曲 为什么相爱的人不能在一起 约定 不得不爱 触电

I deal with the problem by not reading him at all--most of the headings on TimesSelect tell me what I need to know. His appearances on Lehrer are enough for me--a half-hearted attempt to sound reasonable, like Lindsey Graham during the Clinton impeachment proceedings ("I still have an open mind")but, as they say, "when it comes down to the nut-cutting" you always know where he'll stand. A wolf in cheap clothing, as Bugs Bunny would say. Should he repudiate his support of the clown prince running the country, and the disastrous war he has taken us into, I might take notice, but I'm sure he'd do it in a way to distance himself from any responsibility, like all the rest. The only thing I can say on Brooks' behalf is that he likes bourbon.

These people have moved the country so far right that a true centrist would now be considered a raving liberal. Brooks isn't even close.

Brooks like George Will supposedly passes for "an intellectual." This is undoubtedly the saddest comment one could make about the present condition of DC commentary.

Brooks is the worst sort of pseudo-intellectual crap. He knows nothing and doesn't bother to find out what he needs to know. Instead, he just makes it up. He's the boring guy at the cocktail party who tells you, "You know, there's two kinds of people in this world..." At which point, if you're smart, you leave and go get another drink.

Not only is he a hack posturing as a sociologist, but without the actual research, he's also intentionally deceptive, as this brilliant article from Sasha Issenberg in Philadelphia Magazine a couple years ago proves. It's an absolutely hilarious read. Watch Issenberg demolish Brooks's entire modus operandi! See Brooks threaten to destroy Issenberg's career!

http://www.phillymag.com/articles/booboos_in_paradise/

For every 5 Brooks columns I read, I can get through one without having some negative reaction, 2 with a strong wince, and 2 that I stop reading after a couple paragraphs. If I see even a hint of purported populist sentiment, I stop reading immediately, because I know I'm about to read something dishonest or stupid. I do think he's a decent writer, but when he starts talking about people who live where he wouldn't dare to drive... And his "Borat" column was astonishing. Again, that someone can write a good column, and then write a column like the "Borat" column in the same lifetime, really blows my mind.

I have a much higher Brooks Ratio, hence my name.

The first thing Brooks wrote that truly sent me bouncing off the wall was his note in a 2002-ish piece in the NYT Magazine that the average American is richer than 99.9% of the people who have ever lived. I tried doing the math on this for a while, and gave up when I realized that the point is that if it's true, it depends entirely on world population growth rate dynamics; so that the average Frenchman, Norwegian, Japanese and Taiwanese is also richer than 99.9% of the people who have ever lived. The average American is also YOUNGER than 99.9% of all the people who have ever lived, since many of them were born 50,000 years ago or more. It's a meaningless statement, nothing but an excuse for idiotic jingoism. And I find this to be true of a disturbing number of Brooks's statements.

Deal with brooks?

Read Matt Taibbi.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11034127/the_low_post_why_the_democrats_are_still_doomed

Brooks is a bum-licker of power that's all. I read every column through that lens, it always works, and always makes me feel better.

He's dumb as a sack of hammers.

http://www.phillymag.com/articles/booboos_in_paradise/
Posted by: Z on November 30, 2006 at 11:06 PM

thanks for the link, z. brooks is a fathead.

i bought *bobos* hoping for something as funny as *class*, by paul fussell. not even close.

your pal,
blake

I join blake in thanking Z for the link.

I think I have already forwarded the Matt Taibbi piece to all and sundry.

I still maintain my NYTimes Select monthly sub for Norris, Nocera and Morgensen - without doubt some of the finest business writers out there. The level of the Sports columnists is also fairly high.

On Op/Ed there's Frank Rich, Paul Krugman (finally back from vacation!), Talking Points, and occasionally some very interesting guest columnists.

I'm generally spared having to actually read David Brooks - I just read Dean Baker's point by point demolitions at Beat the Press.

I deal with him the way I deal with Mssrs. Friedman, Kristof, Tierney (now thankfully gone) and other Times no-nothings. I don't read him, and I no longer spend any money on The New York Times. I can't imagine why circulation keeps dropping.

What reveals Brooks as being far to the right of a "centrist Democrat" is his selected outrage. He can rip into liberal bloggers, for example, but never fret over the carnage in occupied Iraq, the immense suffering of people in Africa, the tragic fate of Katrina victims. All conservatism columnists share this lack of compassion for other places, other people.

Tierney (now thankfully gone)

Not in fact gone as such but moved to Science.

Knew there was something going on when he started writing articles about the environment which actually made sense.

No one was more shocked than I.

In a fair universe, Brooks would be punished by having to live in red-state Texas or Oklahoma or the generic exurbia he praises. Does he actually want to eat at Red Lobster every night out? No, I'm sure he doesn't. And I'm sure he doesn't eat there now, either.

Brooks is particularly irritating to liberal, educated women because he has worked out his socially conservative utopian platform that we women (the above group) should marry as young as possible and have as many children as possible in order to save society, I suppose, from the lower orders. Only Brooks the Hypocrite is never going to say that.

Here's the thing about Brooks: even in his better columns, there's almost always One Big "Off" Thing - and it's usually the essential point! For instance, my latest of too many Brooks postings:

Why do I read David Brooks? Really. I’m like some highway gawker when it comes to Brooks. I should know better than to hope he might – on this day…no, this one…maybe this one… – finally illuminate with some profound, useful insight. His column on " The Education of Robert Kennedy" tells us

“…it was Robert’s reaction to his brother’s death that is really most instructive to the young…”

He goes on to describe the meaning and fortitude Bobby found in Edith Hamilton’s The Greek Way

"The story of Kennedy’s grief is the story of a man stepping out of his time and fetching from the past a sturdier ethic."

And then he spells it out for us:

"And the lesson, of course, is about the need to step outside your own immediate experience into the past…"

Really, David? . Is that the lesson of RFK’s transformation? Or is the deeper lesson about how one approaches grief? Grief is a deep river. Most of us avoid its shore, show it far too little respect.  If you do it right, grief is an arduous swim. A tough cleanse. Bobby Kennedy walked – perhaps fell - into his river of grief and came out on a far shore a changed man.

I'm all for learning history and reading the classics. But I don't think it's connection to the past that transformed RFK. I think it's appropriate grief that set him right.

a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 a7 a8 a9 a10 a11 a12 a13 a14 a15 a16 a17 a18 a19 a20 a21 a22 a23 a24 a25 a26 a27 a28 a29 a30 a31 a32 a33 a34 a35 a36 a37 a38 a39 a40 a41 a42 a43 a44 a45 a46 a47 a48 a49 a50 a51 a52 a53 a54 a55 a56 a57 a58 a59 a60 a61 a62 a63 a64 a65 a66 a67 a68 a69 a70 a71 a72 a73 a74 a75 a76 a77 a78 a79 a80 a81