Deluge of the Brooks
So, I'm going to flex the blogging muscles here (known, I believe, as the blogceps). I was catching up on the news of the world since I've been enveloped in the holiday haze for the last little while. And I was reading David Brooks' column from the first of the year.
Yeah. Well. That guy's a douche.
His column isn't about the tragedy of the South Asia floods so much as it is about the tragedy of David Brooks' position in relation to the tsunami. Which I can sympathize with. I mean what are the deaths of 150,000 people when confronted with the epic consternation of a great pundit.
Also, on the way to his admonition to the plebs to be as concerned with him for failing to come up with good column inches as the deaths in Aceh, he takes enough time to slam Thoreau and John Muir (John Muir!). Apparently without, y'know, reading anything they ever wrote. Brooks got out the old Bartletts and went at it like the ditzy chick from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. In the portion quoted by Brooks, Thoreau's point was clearly general as to the character of nature. He never meant that Nature personafied was a pure and pleasant lady.
HDT was a man of subtlety and nuance who's attempts to chronicle the world around him (both natural and human) was colored with empathy and detailed observation. Henry Thoreau did fieldwork and took notes. Naturally David Brooks, a man who believes that a listing of consumer items available at Home Depot constitutes sociology, is deeply skeptical.
This is a horrible and specific tragedy. But leave it to David-freakin'-Brooks to turn this into a simultaneous excercise on why he should be the center of attention, and why environmentalists are wrong becasue there was a flood.
After 9/11 I heard two radio DJs comment on the outpouring of statements made by Brittany Spears and Fred Durst and the like. They said: "Shut up, and give a million dollars." That's sort of how I feel about this. Please don't lead me down your own Dantean dark path in the wilderness to confront your existential crisis, David Brooks. Just shut up.
Yeah. Well. That guy's a douche.
His column isn't about the tragedy of the South Asia floods so much as it is about the tragedy of David Brooks' position in relation to the tsunami. Which I can sympathize with. I mean what are the deaths of 150,000 people when confronted with the epic consternation of a great pundit.
Also, on the way to his admonition to the plebs to be as concerned with him for failing to come up with good column inches as the deaths in Aceh, he takes enough time to slam Thoreau and John Muir (John Muir!). Apparently without, y'know, reading anything they ever wrote. Brooks got out the old Bartletts and went at it like the ditzy chick from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. In the portion quoted by Brooks, Thoreau's point was clearly general as to the character of nature. He never meant that Nature personafied was a pure and pleasant lady.
HDT was a man of subtlety and nuance who's attempts to chronicle the world around him (both natural and human) was colored with empathy and detailed observation. Henry Thoreau did fieldwork and took notes. Naturally David Brooks, a man who believes that a listing of consumer items available at Home Depot constitutes sociology, is deeply skeptical.
This is a horrible and specific tragedy. But leave it to David-freakin'-Brooks to turn this into a simultaneous excercise on why he should be the center of attention, and why environmentalists are wrong becasue there was a flood.
After 9/11 I heard two radio DJs comment on the outpouring of statements made by Brittany Spears and Fred Durst and the like. They said: "Shut up, and give a million dollars." That's sort of how I feel about this. Please don't lead me down your own Dantean dark path in the wilderness to confront your existential crisis, David Brooks. Just shut up.
posted by justin | 4:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home