Thursday, January 10, 2019

WTF David Brooks LOL

When you are indignant, or woke, you are showing that you have a superior moral awareness. You don’t have to actually do anything. Your indignation is itself a sign of your own goodness, and if you can be indignant quicker than the people around you, that just shows how much more good you are!
With "The Morality of Selfism" David Brooks pushed aside disappointment and went straight for snarky. He took that shit to 11.

Well, 7-3/8.

Brooks mocks nearly all the liberal cliches. Farmers market? Check. Feelings? Double check. A yard sign that says “Hate is not welcome here”? That's totally a thing, so yes, check.

What's missing? Starbucks. Kim Kardashian and/or Lady Gaga and/or Caitlin Jenner (who is not a liberal, but her acceptance means, wait, um, what?), any sense of what he actually believes. It's amusing to contrast his snarkiness here with "The Remoralization of the Market" where he laments the lack of moral priorities since Ronald Reagan made American great that first time.

A deadly combination of right-wing free-market fundamentalism and left-wing moral relativism led to a withering away of moral norms and shared codes of decent conduct. We ripped the market out of its moral and social context and let it operate purely by its own rules.
Note that the left allowed this to happen, which probably makes them he real villains here. And it's the loss of the codes of decent conduct that is the real tragedy for David Brooks.

Also, Apple complies with existing US tax code and manages to save billions of dollars each year by not paying US taxes on its intellectual property, and really that's 100% liberals doing that too.

Monday, January 7, 2019

Disappointing David Brooks 2019: Episode 1


For those of you paying attention enough to wonder why last week wasn't episode 1, it's because last week was episode prime.

In 2019, David Brooks continues exhibiting two of his most consistent characteristics: a wish to return to the old orthodoxy (partisan, but polite); and disappointment that the new paradigm isn't as polite as it could be, and that he even needs to bring that to our attention.

In "Washington’s New Power Structure," David Brooks writes an open letter to Senate Republicans, assuring them that if they just come together, politely, they can find a way to assuage Donald Trump's need for victory on the border wall funding, while providing Nancy Pelosi (her name is shorthand for Democrats in the House) protection for the DACA Dreamers. Trump's need for the wall (be it solid or slats, 20 feet or 30 feet, a metaphor or a not metaphor) is inane. And the only reason Nancy Pelosi isn't giving Trump money for the wall is because walls are immoral.

Really, David Brooks, that's the reason that Democrats are objecting to funding the wall, because it's immoral? Not because it's impractical, ineffective, far more costly than the $5+ billion requested, or possibly because Trump insisted over and over that Mexico would pay for the wall? None of those reasons, just that it's immoral?

But since there's already 654 miles (per David Brooks) of immoral on the southern border (the dang fence), what's a few hundred more? It's only slightly more immoral-er and thus a perfectly reasonable compromise if it will assuage Donald Trump's temperament, which David Brooks seems to treat with a modicum of respect and not the derision that its earned.

David Brooks is trying for a win/win here, and thinks that the Senate Republicans are the key.  They are the fulcrum between inane and inane (equally inane per David Brooks). David Brooks believes this so strongly that he uses the word "fulcrum" twice.

David Brooks is aware that they are concerned about being primaried or not having Trump's magical campaign touch in their 2020 bid. But Senate Republicans should broker a deal that funds $5+ billion for DACA Dreamer protection because Trump will need them when he is possibly/inevitably impeached.  That is their magical shield.

The idea that Susan Collins and Mittens (and possibly other Republican Senators who possibly have constituents harmed by the shut down) might, on principle, vote to end the shutdown, ON PRINCIPLE and thus challenge the strength of the McConnell Senate never occurred to him. And why should it, they're all just partisan hacks. But saying that is impolite. We should just silently judge them on this.