Saturday, February 9, 2008

what the fuck is david brooks yapping about - part 4

in this part 4 of what appears to be an infinite-part series, i again examine the latest and greatest david brooks column in the new york times and ask the question we've all been wondering: what the fuck is david brooks yapping about?

so...we find ourselves back here again and a lot sooner than i'd anticipated. or wanted, frankly. david brooks definitely has a distinctive voice, one which involves mysterious references and humorless attempts at humor. even the new yorker's shouts & murmurs column elicits more laughs.

i think the point of his most recent op-ed was to illustrate how you can (potentially) use educational levels to explain the democrats' 50-50 split between hillary and obama. i'm not sure if i even believe this thesis, since my very well-educated friends are split between the two. moreover, who can decipher what the underlying message is considering his convoluted words?

he tries to be all cute and wink-wink funny by presenting his column in a q & a format. i have the following questions for him:

1) who is "dr. retail"? am i supposed to get this reference?
2) what is he referring to in the following sentence? in describing obama supporters brooks writes, "They fall for all that zero-carbon footprint, locally grown, community-enhancing Third Place hype. They want cultural signifiers that enrich their lives with meaning." huh? what is "third place"?
3) i think the following sentence describing obama should have CLUNK written next to it: Have you noticed that he’s actually carried into his rallies by a flock of cherubs while the heavens open up with the Hallelujah Chorus? I wonder how he does that.
4) as usual, vast overstatements dominate: High school grads are much less optimistic than college grads. oh yeah? have you met me? my friends?

but! i actually found myself agreeing with brooks on something. i know. i should hang myself in shame and maybe change the name of this series altogether, but how can you not agree with this: "There’s a “Yes We Can” video floating around YouTube in which a bunch of celebrities like Scarlett Johansson and the guy from the Black Eyed Peas are singing the words to an Obama speech in escalating states of righteousness and ecstasy. If that video doesn’t creep out normal working-class voters, then nothing will." although you know he was so proud of knowing who the dude from the black eyed peas was.

anyway, i was going to blog about this real estate article, but suffice to say, how is it that a freelance film maker and his non-profit director wife are able to afford a house in fort greene?

4 comments:

cold4thestreets said...

The other day a partner the firm at which I am employed said something to the effect of David Brooks is the only reasonable conservative mind out there.

This is also the same partner who thinks The Sopranos is the greatest show on TV and has never watched The Wire.

If ever there were somebody who needs to be reading this blog...

heidi said...

i want to make a quick point about the potential for the will.i.am shit to turn off voters. it may happen, but man is it fucked up.

i've admitted before that i've lost interest in bands that got too popular; sometimes i just can't get out of my mind the image of some douche grooving on music i once loved, and it spoils it.

but a candidate for political office is different. to put it simply: a president has to collect votes from douches and non-douches alike. there are just too many douches.

perhaps i've been brainwashed by the media, but i think the call on who to support is not even close now that we've narrowed it to two. one person will win by any means necessary, and who knows what she'll do once she gets there. she also voted for the war in iraq, and it would be fair and reasonable to reject her on that ground alone. (you cannot even drum up the john edwards excuse cold offered---the naivete, i guess it was?---for such a poor judgment.) she's also a very divisive figure, from a very divisive family. she's also not as competitive against the republican nominee. the arguments for her are (1) experience (which, if not combined with good judgment and integrity, matters not in the least); and (2) the krugman health care position--something she failed to achieve when she first had the chance. can ANYONE out there make the argument for her?

heidi said...

oh yeah, and cold, when are you gonna drop an asterisk on your bashing of obama's record in the senate, now that he's the "most liberal" member of 2007? you're in the no-spin zone, mothafucka! jk.

E said...

Oh yeah? If there's such a huge douche factor out there in the electorate, what's to explain romney's disasterous run? (With apologies to the daily show for my lack of originality).

Ay-o!