Fire David Brooks Now. Today.
I rarely read David Brooks at the New York Times—allegedly brought aboard as some sort of moderate, thinking “conservative,” Brooks has just turned into another apologist and proponent for modern GOP radicalism, no matter how outrageous, illegal, bloody, or foul it may be.
George Bush is a radical, of that there can be no doubt—the war in the Iraq is surely the most un-conservative political event we will ever see in our lifetimes. Brooks has never cared—we illegally lied to start it, have killed tens of thousands who did nothing to us, and are currently masters to the new hell on Earth.
This only shatters the conservative patina of caution, prudence, deliberation, and responsibility—no big deal, not at all. We who have proudly called ourselves “conservatives” all our lives are now radical freaks. We never had any of those personal characteristic elements we were so sure we possessed and sneered at liberals for so many years for being deficient of. Get used to it.
Today’s insomnia-inspired read offers the same lame mess: servile, panting admiration for the administration badasses who are blowing up kids, paying off cronies, smashing homes and killing our Service men and women for nothing. Brooks’ firing offense arrives not in this incredibly foul, bloody acceptance of a disastrous war (although it should), but in the last two paragraphs:
“I know only three (contradictory) things. Every few weeks I hear about a new twist in American strategy or tactics. It always seems promising, but conditions don't improve. On the other hand, officials in this administration don't have a thought in their heads about not sticking this out.”
What precisely are the “three things?” Brooks never says. The first element is not a contradiction, it’s a disappointment. Seen in the light of inevitable GOP failure, Brooks says incompetent lying Administration officials still trot out utter failure, week after week. That’s not a contradiction either, merely a confirmation of journalism failure.
“Finally, it may not be long before we can realistically set our goals. The coming elections and the battles for the cities will either put Iraq on a path to normalcy or introduce us to some new hell. Yesterday, Rumsfeld said Iraq had "a crack" at being a success. At least he's not overhyping.”
Where are the three contradictions? Incredibly, nowhere. They just aren’t there, only followed by a sentence that perfectly sums up the radical, freak nature of modern “conservatism:” “…it may not be long before we can realistically set our goals.”
Adults set realistic goals before they start something, especially a $200 billion war that kills humans. The lying children of the modern GOP, though, are obviously not bothered by such lapses in maturity.
It’s been obvious for a long time columnists at the New York Times editorial page have no editor—reaching such lofty heights of the profession just obviates it at this funhouse of incompetence (the extremely wise Krugman utilizes his wife for this function). It’s grossly stupid and unprofessional, but that’s what they decided to do. Gail Collins would have never, ever let those two paragraphs get by her and onto her pages.
If the New York Times is going to be so foolish as to let their columnists submit all on their own, they damn well better show sterling diction, logic and writing skills. The utter contempt Brooks showed to the reader in this column is truly majestic in its scorn—right there in the diction he states there are three contradictions, but he never says what they are.
Fire him. This isn’t a weekly column at the Tuscaloosa Times, it’s one of the top 20 slots in American journalism(sic). For a writer to turn in such work is inexcusable on any level. Brooks just doesn’t care about being a writer, so get rid of him.
Serious minds at the New York Times are fretting about the paper’s reputation—not that they’ve lost it, but how they can ever get it back.
The poor fools have been watching the GOP too long, where nobody is held responsible for anything. The American people are going to fire Bush to try and get the country’s credibility back. Hello? The only way to demonstrate you’re serious (words mean nothing here) is to fire the incompetents who trash your reputation.
Brooks not only sullied the New York Times horribly tarnished reputation with this trash, he flipped off every reader they have with such sloppy, incompetent, rushed, poorly thought-out work. He obviously doesn’t want to be a writer there, so fire the lazy-assed fool and get on the road to redemption. I doubt very, very much the New York Times wants to keep the same historical reputation the modern GOP does.