Yes. I read Brooks’ article or should say, half of it. Had the same sense of wasting time on his inane idea that Harris, or anyone else running, could be compared with the gop’s choice. Seems Brooks just has a real hard time admitting the reality of Trump’s serious threat to our democracy.
I thought he was smarter and better than that. For shame.
As I'm afraid is the case across too much MSM, Brooks' determination to seem a paragon of "fair and balanced" kneecaps his value contribution, personifying the doubt Charles Bukowski so cogently identified years ago: "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence."
If you dislike David (F-en) Brooks, you might enjoy driftglass at (https://driftglass.blogspot.com/).
The only blogger who bills himself as the worlds only 'Brooks-ologist'.
He does write about other stuff so you'll have to do a search for the subject.
RandomTroll
Orem
👍👏👏👏👏
Yes. I read Brooks’ article or should say, half of it. Had the same sense of wasting time on his inane idea that Harris, or anyone else running, could be compared with the gop’s choice. Seems Brooks just has a real hard time admitting the reality of Trump’s serious threat to our democracy.
I thought he was smarter and better than that. For shame.
Thank you. I have been grinding my teeth since reading Brooks piece in NYT and SLT
As I'm afraid is the case across too much MSM, Brooks' determination to seem a paragon of "fair and balanced" kneecaps his value contribution, personifying the doubt Charles Bukowski so cogently identified years ago: "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence."
https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=tDtE1BkfVs4&si=fCBOnsQtO994Lsyt
Delicious dissection of Brooks by two of my faves at If Books Could Kill.