The Inmates Have Taken Over The Asylum

David Brooks: Stay Sane America, Please!:

In every recent presidential election American voters have selected the candidate with the most secure pair of hands. They’ve elected the person who would be a stable presence and companion for the next four years. I believe they’re going to do that again. And if they’re not, please allow me a few more months of denial.

Denial? Secure pair of hands? George W. Bush?

Sex Sells

David Brooks: The Anxieties of Impotence

Ross Douthat: My Sarah Palin Romance

Dumbass Quote Of Note - David Brooks

"The good news is there is no reason to be pessimistic during the war on terrorism. Individuals and societies are tough and resilient, and usually emerge from attacks better than before." - David Brooks

Bizarro World

David Brooks on Sarah Palin: “She's a joke. I just can't take her seriously.”

Mark Shields on Barack Barack Obama: “And I think it makes me nostalgic for those days when we had a manly man in the White House who could say, “Let’s kick some tail and ask questions afterwards” you know? That’s what we really need instead of any reflection.”

Of course if you watch the video of Shields it is obvious that he is being sarcastic. No one at ThinkProgress (and other sites as well) seems to have picked up on that, however. By jove, DougJ has got it after all.

The world, for one short moment, is not so bizarre after all.

I’m still going to retreat to my fortress of solitude, however.

UPDATE: ThinkProgress has seen the light and updated their original post. It’s a little disappointing that Mark Shields had to tell them that he was being sarcastic, though. Come on ThinkProgress, I expect better from you.

Et Tu, David Brooks?

Good God Almighty, I actually agree with something David Brooks said. Ready the smelling salts, I’m feeling faint.

From Republicans, Democrats criticize Jindal's speech by Beth Fouhy:

Insane. Childish. Disaster. And those were some of the kinder comments from political pundits about Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and his response to President Barack Obama's speech to Congress on Tuesday night.

David Brooks, a conservative New York Times columnist who has criticized aspects of the stimulus plan, nonetheless called Jindal's arguments "insane" and tone-deaf given the dire economic challenges the country faces.

"To come up in this moment in history with a stale, 'Government is the problem, you can't trust the federal government' is just a disaster for the Republican Party," Brooks said on PBS' "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." "It's not where the country is, it's not where the future of the country is."

I Missed Monday's Depression

“I woke up this morning
I woke up this morning
I woke up this morning with the Monday morning blues” Mississippi John Hurt

Did you happen to see it? The bailout didn’t happen over the weekend. There should have been a depression on Monday.

From McCain calls for debates to be delayed by Domenico Montanaro:

McCain advisors say they will do all the debates but the schedule is up in the air.
They also deny that there is a political calculation in this and say without action the country could slide into a Depression by Monday and added "we'll see 12 percent unemployment" if action is not completed.

As I write this no bailout plan has been passed. Yet, somehow the McCain campaign is no longer suspended. Have I missed the recovery also? Things happen so fast these days.

From David Brooks Has A Fetish by Turkana:

Anyone notice a theme, here? Of course, as Brooks already made clear, whatever reforms that would be later undertaken must necessarily not include too much regulation, so it's not clear what he means. Except that the bailout bill needed to be passed. But what's worse is that even after it failed, even after the market had already reacted, Brooks still wants the same bill! Now! Because whatever else happens, we must panic! Pass the "Patriot" Act without reading it. Invade Iraq for no reason. Allow spying on anyone and everyone. The key is to panic! And submit! And not think! And have that strong and powerful Big Brother making all the decisions. To make everyone feel calm, again. If not sedated...

I missed Monday's depression, yet for some reason I still feel blue and down. Too many lunatics running the asylum, I suppose.

Stephen Colbert Mocks E.D. Hill And David Brooks

Memo To Charlie, George, And David

To Charlie Gibson, George Stephanopoulos, and David Brooks:

Paraphrasing John Prine: Your flag lapel pin won’t get you into heaven anymore. “They're already overcrowded from your dirty little war. Now Jesus don't like killin', no matter what the reason's for…”

Instead of being concerned about flag lapel pins maybe you should be more concerned with the “hole in daddy's arm where all the money goes."

I thought we already covered all of this nonsense forty years ago.

Does Anyone Take David Brooks Seriously?

In 2003 David Brooks saw George W. Bush as an honest man:

I think we are all disgusted by the way George W. Bush's administration has allowed honesty and candor to seep into the genteel world of international affairs.

Now his administration has taken to honesty like a drunken sailor. It has made a fetish of candor and forthrightness.

In 2004 David Brooks thought George W. Bush was right about Iraq:

…I still believe that in 20 years, no one will doubt that Bush did the right thing. To his enormous credit, the president has been ruthlessly flexible over the past months and absolutely committed to seeing this through. He is acknowledging the need for more troops.

Yesterday, David Brooks thought Charlie Gibson and George Stephanapoulos did a great job:

I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that. The candidates each looked foolish at times, but that’s their own fault.

We may not like it, but issues like Jeremiah Wright, flag lapels and the Tuzla airport will be important in the fall. Remember how George H.W. Bush toured flag factories to expose Michael Dukakis. It’s legitimate to see how the candidates will respond to these sorts of symbolic issues.

Shouldn't journalists do a little more than "make politicians uncomfortable, …explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities?" How about something as simple as finding out where politicians stand on the issues. And no, I don't mean "symbolic issues."

Symbolic issues? What about real issues? Iraq, Iran, North Korea, nuclear bombs, immigration, education, healthcare, inflation, the economy, torture, impeachment, the deficit, the debt, the housing crisis, war crimes, extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo Bay, terrorism, taxes, government spending, FEMA, Katrina, New Orleans, Supreme Court nominees, Presidential power, FISA, Darfur, AIDS, Corporate Crime, Global Warming, energy costs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Walter Reed, Veterans care, the case of Gov. Don Siegelman, toxic waste, missing White House emails, the huge U.S. embassy in Iraq, Blackwater, clean coal, nuclear power, oil drilling in Alaska, forestry in Alaska, foreign investment in U.S. companies, Pakistan, Israel, Palestine, China, food safety, toy safety, NASA, bridges to nowhere, bridges falling down, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, Egypt, the Department of Homeland Security, Star Wars (Reagan’s, not the movie), Afghanistan, crime, the war on drugs, the death penalty, prison overcrowding, the U.S. prison industry, racism, voting machines, rigged elections, air travel security, free speech zones, police brutality, pollution, overpopulation, al-Qaeda, Federal No-Bid Contracts, Alberto Gonzales, Executive Orders, the Middle East, the price of oil, government secrecy, stem cell research, Hamas, the FBI, the CIA, Hatch Act violations, the United Nations, the United States attorney scandal, coal miner safety, poverty, homelessness, Syria, gun violence, the Endangered Species Act, Mad Cow disease, U.S. missile defense systems in Eastern Europe, Cuba, internet privacy, educational freedom, intelligent design, evolution, war spending, PBS funding, federal funding of family-planning programs, the Gaza Strip, military tribunals, U.S. role as nation-builders, Kazakhstan, government ethics, the world-wide food crisis, NAFTA, the NSA, the consolidation of the corporate media, No Child Left Behind, the Unitary Executive Theory of the Presidency, The Pandemic Flu Plan, corporate welfare, corporate tax breaks, the National Rifle Association, lobbyists, Presidential bypassing of Senate confirmation processes, dirty bombs, school safety, international treaties, the breaking of international treaties, college-tuition assistance, the Clean Air Act, mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, perchlorate contamination in drinking water, the Abu Ghraib scandal, and the Bill of Rights. I’ll stop there, even though there is probably more.

None of these things matter to David Brooks. Lapel pins seem to be very important to him, however. Why does this man write for the New York Times? Can’t they find someone else, someone that’s not an idiot?

The Media's Flawed Coverage Of Iraq

From The Iraq Follies By Greg Mitchell:

Stephen Colbert's routine at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner in April 2006 is remembered for the in-his-face mockery of President Bush—but he also spanked the press, perhaps one reason his mainstream reviews were mixed at best. Addressing the correspondents directly, Colbert said, "Let's review the rules. The president makes decisions; he's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a spell-check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know—fiction."

On Meet the Press in July 2007, David Brooks declared that 10,000 Iraqis a month would perish if the United States pulled out. Bob Woodward, also on the show, challenged him on this, asking for his source. Brooks admitted, "I just picked that 10,000 out of the air."

And People Continue To Die…

From Cokie Roberts speaks out on the war on behalf of the American people by Glenn Greenwald:

The single most dishonest and propagandistic tactic of establishment journalists is to take their own opinion and assert as a fact that "most Americans" agree with them, even when that assertion is indisputably false. David Brooks is probably the single most frequent purveryor of this deceit, but the bulk of establishment pundits regularly deploy the same method -- simultaneously holding themselves out as Spokesmen for the Regular People while showing complete contempt for what they actually think by lying about their views.

Public opinion on the question of whether we should withdraw from Iraq is unambiguous and it has been for a long time. Large majorities of the public favor withdrawal regardless of whether we're "winning." To say otherwise -- as establishment journalists like Roberts continuously do -- is just rank deceit. How else can one phrase that? And why shouldn't ABC News make that clear, retract that statement the way they would any other factually false claim made by one of their journalists?

What these journalists actually do -- as they prance around as Spokespeople for the Regular Americans -- is attempt to render public opinion completely inconsequential. When it comports with what the political establishment wants, they tout it as democracy in action, as the establishment speaking for The American People. When public opinion rejects what they're doing, they just lie about it and pretend that people agree with them. The more honest establishment mavens just ignore public opinion altogether and insist that they know what's best for the People.

The Almighty David Brooks Has Spoken

The other day David Brooks was on the Today Show saying the same thing he says in his column entitled The Long Defeat. On the Today Show he said more explicitly, than he does in his column, that Hillary should quit. By the way, he seemed to be very pleased with himself for coming up with the phrase “audacity of hopelessness.”

I think that if David Brooks thinks Hillary should quit, then she shouldn’t. Between Hillary and Barack, I’ll take Barack. Between Hillary and David, I’ll take Hillary. Why is Brooks so concerned about the Democrats all of a sudden? What is his ulterior motive?

David Brooks Shows Us That He's Been A Bad Writer For A Long Time

Here is the beginning of Remembering the Mentor by David Brooks:

When I was in college, William F. Buckley Jr. wrote a book called “Overdrive” in which he described his glamorous lifestyle. Since I was young and a smart-aleck, I wrote a parody of it for the school paper.

“Buckley spent most of his infancy working on his memoirs,” I wrote in my faux-biography. “By the time he had learned to talk, he had finished three volumes: ‘The World Before Buckley,’ which traced the history of the world prior to his conception; ‘The Seeds of Utopia,’ which outlined his effect on world events during the nine months of his gestation; and ‘The Glorious Dawn,’ which described the profound ramifications of his birth on the social order.”

The piece went on in this way. I noted that his ability to turn water into wine added to his popularity at prep school. I described his college memoirs: “God and Me at Yale,” “God and Me at Home” and “God and Me at the Movies.” I recounted that after college he had founded two magazines, one called The National Buckley and the other called The Buckley Review, which merged to form The Buckley Buckley.

I wrote that his hobbies included extended bouts of name-dropping and going into rooms to make everyone else feel inferior.

Buckley came to the University of Chicago, delivered a lecture and said: “David Brooks, if you’re in the audience, I’d like to offer you a job.”

So before Mr. Brooks was a lackey for the Bush administration, he was a lackey for William F. Buckley Jr. and he seems to be proud of the fact that he was. In one fell swoop Mr. Brooks exposes his consistency. He’s always been a bad writer and he’s always been a subordinate, a toady, and a sycophant.

Three More Reasons Why I Hope John McCain Doesn't Become President

In his February 22, 2008 column The McCain World Rift David Brooks reveals three things about John “The Tri-Bomber” McCain:

1. He admires Alan Greenspan.
2. He admires Henry Kissinger.
3. He likes movies and books in which the hero dies at the end.

None of them are things that make me jump up and say, “I must vote for John McCain." Not that long ago Alan Greenspan was pushing adjustable rate mortgages. That was about the worst advice anyone could have taken at that time. Henry Kissinger once worked for Richard Nixon and advises our current wunderkind George W. Bush. Definitely not my kind of guy. The last thing about the hero is just plain weird.

Wow! I Actually Agree With Brit Hume

Bill Kristol:

White women are a problem, that's, you know -- we all live with that.

Brit Hume:

Bill, for the record, I like white women.

Why did the New York Times hire Bill Kristol? They already have David Brooks. If they keep this up they will need to change their slogan to: “All the idiots that are fit to print”.

The Inane Ramblings Of David Brooks

If David Brooks doesn’t have to listen to himself talk then why should we? This also applies to his writing. A recent opinion piece of his for The New York Times Two Cheers for Wall St. certainly shows that he pays no attention to his own writing. Otherwise, how can he possibly write things like this:

There is roughly a 100 percent chance that we’re going to spend much of this year talking about the subprime mortgage crisis, the financial markets and the worsening economy. The only question is which narrative is going to prevail, the Greed Narrative or the Ecology Narrative.

In the very first sentence he claims that he can see into the future. If the economy improves will we still be talking about “the worsening economy”? Also, I’m sure that in the year 2008 I will have more than one question. And even if I only had one question it would not be, “which narrative is going to prevail, the Greed Narrative or the Ecology Narrative”, it would be, “Why is George W. Bush still in the White House after he has screwed everything up so much?”

Mr. Brooks then goes on to say something that I happen to believe is true:

The Greed Narrative goes something like this: The financial markets are dominated by absurdly overpaid zillionaires. They invent complex financial instruments, like globally securitized subprime mortgages that few really understand. They dump these things onto the unsuspecting, sending destabilizing waves of money sloshing around the globe. Economies melt down. Regular people lose jobs and savings. Meanwhile, the financial insiders still get their obscene bonuses, rain or shine.

The morality of the Greed Narrative is straightforward. A small number of predators destabilize the economy and reap big bonuses. The financial system is fundamentally broken. Government should step in and control the malefactors of great wealth.

I don’t think he thinks this is true, however. He goes on to describe something he calls The Ecology Narrative:

The Ecology Narrative is different. It starts with the premise that investors and borrowers cooperate and compete in a complex ecosystem. Everyone seeks wealth while minimizing risk.

Sounds kind of Pollyannaish to me. Yes, investors and borrowers compete, but thinking that they cooperate sounds a little naive to me. Finance is a winner take all cut-throat game at the very least. Has he never seen traders in the pit?

Brooks says:

The United States has generally opted for financial innovation. This has worked out pretty well. The U.S. has enjoyed 25 years of strong economic growth, in part because capital has been efficiently allocated to companies that can use it well.

This has worked out pretty well for the rich, but not for everyone else. Has “capital been efficiently allocated to” people who have lost their jobs, their homes, their pensions, their healthcare over the last 25 years?

Financial instruments like adjustable-rate and subprime mortgages have allowed millions of people to get homes they could not otherwise purchase, and research shows that most of these tools have been used intelligently.

Yes, millions of people were able “to get homes.” Now millions of people are losing those homes. “...most of these tools have been used intelligently”? Does Brooks have his head in the sand? How can he possibly write this at a time of financial crisis that was caused by… oh wait a minute, it’ll come to me… ADJUSTABLE-RATE AND SUBPRIME MORTGAGES.

Hedge funds have proliferated to help investors manage risk. These things exist precisely because investors want to smooth out volatility. In the old days, a blow to, say, the Texas economy could have dried up lending in Texas, but now funds flow globally, and money from one part of the world can shore up weakness in another.

Mr. Brooks flunks Capitalism 101 if he thinks that the primary reason for hedge funds is to manage risk. Like any business the primary reason for its existence is to make money for its owner. And hedge funds are making some of their owners incredibly rich at the expense of others. In financial markets there are winners and losers, we don’t all win. Money is not created and money doesn’t vanish, it just goes to the winners. In the old days when banks were locally owned, mortgages stayed with the bank and were not sold many times over. In the old days when banks were locally owned, a bank failure did not threaten the ENTIRE world economy, just that one bank. It was like a built-in safety net of containment. Now we need foreign investors to come and rescue us from ourselves. Brooks thinks this is a good thing?

…time and again hedge funds have dampened market instability. If a currency, a company or a stock market starts to spiral downward, deep-pocketed funds, smelling bargains, will come in and stabilize its assets. If a company’s price is rising to unsustainable levels, contrarian funds bet against the hype.

Except for the time when the largest hedge fund of its time had to be bailed out by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York with $3.625 billion to avoid a total collapse in the financial markets. To David Brooks I say: “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

Then Brooks goes on to explain that financial innovation requires an “adolescence” and we all should just learn to live with it because in the end everything will just be hunky-dory. He doesn’t mention how much money this “adolescense” will cost us.

The lesson of the Ecology Narrative is that, in most cases, the market corrects itself.

Then why does the government always have to step in to appease Wall Street? Why can’t the market just correct itself?

The Ecology Narrative is not morally satisfying. I wouldn’t bet on its popularity as a backlash against Wall Street and finance sweeps across a recession-haunted country. But the Ecology Narrative has one thing going for it. It happens to be true.

This is how David Brooks closes his column. Let’s not do what is morally right. For what reason? I don’t know. Brooks probably doesn’t know either. The proof that the Ecology Narrative is true? If wishes were horses…

Perhaps David Brooks is one of the main reasons that the New York Times stock price has gone from around $50.00 to $15.00 over the last five years. Perhaps if the New York Times fired him…