David Brooks thinks it is witty to mock gay people for giving up the freedom not to marry.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
13 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 68: Apartheid South Africans Strike Back With Bozell III Named as Ambassador
- Day 67: The Vances Will Descend on Greenland as Unwanted Guests
- Midweek Cafe and Lounge, Volume 387
- Day 65: The Fascist Regime is Busted for Using Insecure Communications
- The Fury of the Democratic Base is Not a Mirror of the Tea Party Revolt
Recent Comments
The only reason it isn’t intuitively obvious to everyone that David Brooks is a huge moron is that it’s so hard to understand his terribly written columns.
This debate is just as depressing as the drug war debate. We’re debating gay marriage, when conservatives should be rallying around it. It’s a patriarchal, conservative institution! It’s only a natural fit for cons to support it. Liberals and leftists should support it as a general equality issue, but will HRC move on to tackle issues of material value for gays? or will they do what they did prior to their sudden embrace of gay marriage and collect checks and schmooze with pols and accomplishing nothing? ENDA was supposedly high up on their list, certainly prior to marriage, and we still don’t have it.
I would like to kick David Brooks right in his tiny little shriveled nutsack. Hard.
What a nerd.
It was so much easier in yesteryear for David’s crowd. Yesteryear when you could simply ostrasize gays and not have to make the case why YOU weren’t the problem.
There is no case to be made. And just like the story goes; ‘how many gays does God have to send down before you recognize gays are his children too?’
David Brooks’ arguments are an embarassment.
“And while we’re at it, what’s with these civil rights protesters wanting to be served at the Woolworth’s lunch counter? Don’t they know the food is terrible?”
Um, I must have missed the legislation making it mandatory for gays to marry.
More seriously, Brooks’ argument (to the extent he has one) is the same one it always is: freedom is a bad thing, and people need to be controlled (by people like Brooks) or Very Bad Things Happen (to people like Brooks). That, in a nutshell, is his entire career: using a lot of big words and arcane references to make an incoherent argument for, essentially, fascism.
Unfortunately for Brooks (and people like Brooks), outside of the occasional urge to shoot them, the vast majority of us don’t give a flying fuck about people like Brooks. And that, more than anything, is what gets his chastity belt in such a wad.
I didn’t take it as mocking, I took it as Brooks carried away with himself that he’s writing a pro marriage equality column
Whether Brooks intended on mocking, or merely wrote a column so easy to mock, the product of his column? Mocking.
And few writers for a publicher with a major publisher mock as delightfully and viciously than Taibbi. He gets right to the bottom of any Brooks critique:
“What an asshole!”.
well, I didn’t mean to suggest the column isn’t totally offensive on multiple levels – pretty terrible; I just thought it was arch, not mocking. He kind of circled around, as if he were setting up the reader for something negative, then self satisfiedly states he’s in favor of marriage equality. self satisfied and arch I guess would be my words
CASUAL OBSERVATIOn…
The only duty and obligation any being on this planet has is to love every other being on this planet…
Evil Jesus…
Brooks’ freedom ought to be enlarged by terminating his writerly duties, such as they are.
By all means. He needs to devote more time to his vast spaces for entertaining. And think of how much vaster they’ll look when nobody’s in them.
His “best” yet. It was so convoluted that it became the perfect self parody. I’m tempted to delve into it, but I’m going to wait a week or so to make sure the date he wrote that didn’t influence it: April 1.