I was reading a piece in the New York Times by Paul Krugman, wherein he lays out a case for the new Obama administration to pay attention to FDR's programs. I am a Krugmanite. Or Krugmaniac. Or Krugolyte. Whatever he says or writes I tend to regard with respect. But that's not the reason for this modest posting.
At the end of Krugman's latest piece in the New York Times there was a funny little sentence. Remember now, Krugman has recently been awarded the Nobel prize for economics, so he isn't just a columnist: he is someone to be regarded with a modicum of respect and consideration. Anyway, at the end of his piece in the Times was the following sentence: David Brooks has the day off. And that struck me as funny and odd and absurd and obliquely pathetic. Confession: I think Brooks is a bullshit artist who molds reality to slide into his comfy pants. During the past six years or so I have watched him (as little as possible, actually) on The News Hour as his skull has dropped lower and lower towards his chest, his broad forehead seeking its appointed destiny with the good earth, where all pundits skulls must one day rest.
Ah, good old David Brooks, a small man who fills the screen with his shaking head as he utters platitudes and fal-der-all and terribly wise remonstrations of whoever makes his lips quiver. And guess what? The New York Times felt it had to inform me that David Brooks "was off today" at the end of an article by the Nobel winning economist Paul Krugman. Guess what again: I don't read Krugman to find out what the fuck David Brooks is doing, or what his vacation days are, or just about anything at all about this drooping apologist for the malevolent claws of New Age Conservatism. As a matter of fact I would appreciate it if the Times didn't tell me what Brooks is up to. They might consider ending a Krugman piece with the following:
++++
At the end of Krugman's latest piece in the New York Times there was a funny little sentence. Remember now, Krugman has recently been awarded the Nobel prize for economics, so he isn't just a columnist: he is someone to be regarded with a modicum of respect and consideration. Anyway, at the end of his piece in the Times was the following sentence: David Brooks has the day off. And that struck me as funny and odd and absurd and obliquely pathetic. Confession: I think Brooks is a bullshit artist who molds reality to slide into his comfy pants. During the past six years or so I have watched him (as little as possible, actually) on The News Hour as his skull has dropped lower and lower towards his chest, his broad forehead seeking its appointed destiny with the good earth, where all pundits skulls must one day rest.
Ah, good old David Brooks, a small man who fills the screen with his shaking head as he utters platitudes and fal-der-all and terribly wise remonstrations of whoever makes his lips quiver. And guess what? The New York Times felt it had to inform me that David Brooks "was off today" at the end of an article by the Nobel winning economist Paul Krugman. Guess what again: I don't read Krugman to find out what the fuck David Brooks is doing, or what his vacation days are, or just about anything at all about this drooping apologist for the malevolent claws of New Age Conservatism. As a matter of fact I would appreciate it if the Times didn't tell me what Brooks is up to. They might consider ending a Krugman piece with the following:
David Brooks is nowhere to be seen today, which is the way some of us like it.That would do just fine.
++++
Comments
--Oscar