Pot, Meet Kettle

We have the early winner for the most ironic column of the year, the "estimable" David Brooks delivers:

. . . Al Gore’s “The Assault on Reason” is well worth reading. It reminds us that whatever the effects of our homogenizing mass culture, it is still possible for exceedingly strange individuals to rise to the top.

You remind us of this with every column Mr. Brooks. I have not read Gore's book, and Gore may indeed be a strange egg. But having read David Brooks for too many years, and having dedicated a good deal of time proving (yes, I proved it) that he is a mendacious, insecure, unethical, STRANGE man, it ill behooves him to call anyone else strange. We have many unkind words for Friedman, Broder, Klein and others. But nothing compares to the bizarre mind that David Brooks possesses. Married to his utter lack of fealty to the truth, to honest argument and to decency, it takes some nerve for Brooks to write what he does about Gore. But the success of David Brooks can only be attributed to gall, talent and intelligence surely can not explain it. They are nonexistent in him.

< The Dangerous Cooptation of The Blogosphere | Blogosphere News >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by squeaky on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:08:10 AM EST
    But having read David Brooks for too many years,
    That takes tremendous dedication. For me the expense of vomit bags outweighed reading him more that five times.

    I agree, from my limited experience that he is that he is a mendacious, insecure, unethical gas bag.  Although he must have some great social talent, what else could keep him visible for so long.

    reason (none / 0) (#2)
    by TomK on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:09:11 AM EST
    you really should read that book it's excellent.

    Oh god, I can't read him anymore (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:11:21 AM EST
    I'm not big on cults of personality, but no one having been employed by the Weekly Standard is fit to shine Al Gore's shoes.

    Ok, so you made me look (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:14:18 AM EST
    Brooks wants us to understand that he's an expert on philosophy, psychology, history, and, of all things, the internet. He is, I think, a bit obsessed with his subject.

    The fault is not with David Brooks (none / 0) (#5)
    by chemoelectric on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:14:45 AM EST
    It's not Brooks's fault; you don't expect the phony to know whether or not to be published. It's the fault of the people who publish his junk and put him on TV. Those are the people who owe us all an explanation.

    You could have done that proof in your sleep while drunk; I certainly don't doubt that the proof is secure enough to publish in Science, if 'lying pseudo-journalists' were the theme for that week.

    Thank you for undertaking a dirty task (none / 0) (#6)
    by yudel on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:23:04 AM EST
    Not supporting Brooks is one of the many joys of being an ex-NYTimes subscriber. That said, he is worth reading (by someone else, thank you very much) because he does represent a very important cog in the Republican machine.

    Remember: If he says something that is true and apparently not serving Party interests -- he is just trying to fool you with misdirection.

    I remain a subscriber, but I don't read Brooks. (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:26:02 AM EST
    Sounds like a very selective reading of book (none / 0) (#8)
    by teacherken on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:31:12 AM EST
    which means Gore must scare the hell out of him.

    Caveat - I did an extensive piece derived from the Gore book at Big Orange, which can be read here - it remained on the recommended list there for over 24 hours.  Were one merely to look at the selections in the blockquotes I think it would give the lie to the thrust of this morning's Brooks' piece.