Today In “How Is This Dickweed Employed?”

Where David Brooks should be.

Where David Brooks is.

Okay, Okay. I shouldn’t read David Brooks. I shouldn’t give two shits about what that neo-Victorian finger-wagger is on about today. Butthis shit right here just left me gobsmacked. Read on!

[T]here is a misbegotten ideology haunting the land, the ideology of sunshinism. This is the belief that everything should be made public.


Sunshinism is a destructive ideology. Forcing people to financially undress in public is just one of those incursions that repels decent people from running for office.

That’s right. You have just witnessed a man who has a cushy sinecure at the country’s premier newspaper just say that too much public information is a bad thing. Take a minute to let that sink in. And imagine if, say, the Commandant of the Marine Corps embraced pacifism, or the Pope suddenly decided that this whole “God” stuff is all bunkum and issued an encyclical stating that Holy Mother Church was to become the world’s foremost atheist organization. While my two scenarios are, essentially, punchlines, that’s what Brooks just did. David Brooks, ladies and gentlemen: walking punchline.

You should hit that link and read the whole thing. I don’t know if Brooks actually believes the bullshit he’s spewing or if it’s all a show, but in the end, it doesn’t matter. To be fair, Gail Collins does point out how stupid this idea is, but that’s akin to calling water wet at this point.

David Brooks: Go find another job, please. You’re one of the one percent; actually, even better, you’re a mouthpiece for them, so you’ll land okay. No breadlines for the likes of you, O Titan of the written word. But journalism? You’re doing the vast majority of us no favors with this, and it can’t make you feel good to have millions of people mutter “Christ, what an asshole” every time they see your picture.

But it shouldn’t be on Brooks to recognize what a schmuck he is. I mean, this enormous, gaping asshole has every right to his opinion. But I can’t imagine why a goddamned business that is (in theory, at least) committed to shining light into dark corners sees fit to cut him a check for this utter, utter crap.

Well played, dying industry. Well played.

14 thoughts on “Today In “How Is This Dickweed Employed?”

  1. It’s hard, I mean REALLY hard to string 250 (more or less) words together every week. Guys like Brooks just start typing. They have no idea where their words are going to end or what they are even talking about. It’s all empty gas meant to fill space and sell advertising.

  2. Or imagine if lots of “liberals” decided that indefinite detention without trial, wiretapping without a warrant, and assassination of American citizens were hunky-dory as long as a Democrat did them. Oh, wait.

  3. Did you see the part where he threw out the idea that only rich people should be President?

  4. because… everyone KNOWS that decent people do things with money that is NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS!!!

  5. @ Tom Allen
    I don’t know any actual liberals who think any of those things are hunky-dory. Most liberals I’ve seen are upset about those things and some even want to impeach or primary Obama for them. Of course, most of those folks also would take Obama on his worst day over a GOP President on their best, which is overall pretty sensible.

  6. Ah, well, we’re talking about the paper that fired Sy Hersh. And the paper that also hired little Billy Kristol, but no one was fired for that road trip to la-la land, either. And the paper that repeated the phrase, always straight-faced, “enhanced interrogation techniques,” (although they were hardly alone in that, this is, after all, the paper that thinks of itself as the leader of the industry). And the paper that elevated Judith Miller and Michael Gordon to the status of front-pagers. And we’ll just sort of tiptoe past all that Jayson Blair nonsense, while we’re at it.
    Of course they’d hire a bluff, chuffy dunderheaded cheerleader for the self-important wealthy. That’s a not insubstantial portion of their readership.

  7. As a penance, David Brooks should be forced to undress publicly. And I don’t mean financially. Of course, if you have a heart condition, you should not look.

  8. So last week the public editor was agonizing over whether the New York Times should concern itself with reporting the truth, and this week Brooks doesn’t think they should concern themselves with providing the public with information at all.
    Perhaps they should just close their doors since they seem to think that the newspaper business and journalism itself is a very bad idea.

  9. I can’t figure out the cry over getting one specific repub candidate to release their tax forms to the public. Shouldn’t those asking for the forms be asking ALL of the remaining 4 candidates to release their info?
    Not to mention, it is pretty much SOP to call for the release of tax info once the person becomes the official candidate.

  10. Brooks is a f*cking schmuck! That’s all I can say about David Brooks at this point. As for mittens refusing to release his tax returns, well, I figure if a potential employer apparently has the right to do a credit check on me, then we (as mittens potential employers) have a right to demand to see his tax returns.

  11. “most of those folks also would take Obama on his worst day over a GOP President on their best”
    Yet they (you) won’t consider voting Socialist, Green, or Justice Party, even though these parties reflect their beliefs much better than the Democrats.

  12. @Tom Allen
    I can only speak for myself and not others on this list. But pragmatically, the USA is a 2 party system. Even when I lived in SC and it was a given that the repub candidate would win, I couldn’t bring myself to make a protest vote for other parties (Green, etc.) both because they usually weren’t running in the race and I couldn’t have lived with myself if I the race came back unexpectedly close and I had possibly had a part in the dem not winning by not voting for them.
    Of course, hopefully the Tea Party and the Libertarians can “help” the repubs. If Paul ran as a Libertarian, he could do for the repubs what Nader did for the dems.
    Theoretically, I personally would like for the different parties to be electable and then have to form coalitions, similar to England. But I don’t see evidence of that becoming viable in the near future.

Comments are closed.