David Brooks, the Nuclear Option, and $20 Buffets

Hmmm...in Chevron's most recent post, he mentions the NYTimes's decision to make its op-ed columnists pieces subscription-only online, and in the process notes David Brooks's apparent affinity for Andrew Sullivan's blog. And the conneciton of these two facts, without drawing the obvious conclusion, leaves me puzzled. Let's start with the conclusion, and then I'll explain a little further: David Brooks is a hack.

See, the irony of the Times's new $50/month op-ed subscription is that I would pay $50 to have every David Brooks column replaced with an extra Paul Krugman or Maureen Dowd column, but there's no way on God's green earth I'm forking over any dead presidents to read Brooks every third day. And as for the idea that Brooks is reaching out to the blogs with his latest round of plagarism, I beg to differ. What's really going on is a mere symptom of the fact that Brooks struggles to find material that passes the laugh test, given that he's such an inveterate moron. I mean, anyone who would publish a column arguing that Bush's Social Security plan is a call for shared sacrifice, while at the same time not even deigning to mention, say, the income tax cut or the repeal of the estate tax, is either a very unapologetic liar or lurking on the very edge of a persistent vegitative state. So, when Brooks rips Sullivan off, it seems to me that he's not sending coded messages to the blogs, but just trolling the internet for articulate points he can include in his own column. Heck, the Times may have encouraged him to do so in an effort to justify the $50. After all, if people didn't know that they could read Sullivan for free, they might be willing to pay the cash to read Brooks's plagarism.

And while we're on the subject of head-scratching political issues, has there been anything more absurd and hypocritical to enter the Amercian political landscape in the past decade other than the so-called nuclear option? I mean, really, the whole thing -- from the original concept, to the debate that's gone on over the past week, to the media and blog analyis of the issue -- is just absurd. Just for starters, let's note the fact that any Republican Senator who votes in favor of the nuke is admitting that s/he violated his or her oath to uphold the Constitution. Then there's the spectacular canard that the filibuster is "unprecedented," which is particularly funny in light of the dozens of filibusters that were carried out by ALL of the most vocal nuclear option proponents when Clinton was in office. Or, if we really want to enter the territory of high comedy, there's the fact that Rick Santorum claimed that Democratic support for the filibuster was the same thing as Hitler bitching about an allied invasion of Paris. I can only assume that the junior Senator from Pennsylvania hoped to invoke Godwin's Law in order to end debate and thus avoid the nuclear option altogether. The idea that the U.S. Senate -- the self-styled "world's greatest deliberative body" -- is even debating this tripe is laughable. Then again, watching Frank Lautenberg make his point by displaying a poster of Palpatine from Revenge of the Sith was priceless.

More important than all of this, however, is the fact that law school apparently makes people incapable of being cool. One might imagine that, on the Saturday before graduation, students (even law students) might want to throw a good party. But, no, they want to throw a lame party. Honestly, how is it possible to start a party at 11pm, run out of mixers by midnight, and turn on the lights at 12:30? If I wanted to be jerked off, it would be much simpler to stay home and do it myself. At least that way, I'd have something to show for it when I was done. Of course, even more objectionable is the law school's decision to make us pay $20 per person for the post-graduation buffet. I might be more accepting had I not paid $120,000 for the privilege of a law school diploma. Considering that they haven't really bothered to teach me law, it seems to me a free buffet isn't too much to ask.


Blogger Categorically Imperative said...

Did I link to something I wrote on a different website in my post here? Yes, yes I did? Chutzpah? You bet.

Why is my blog name neither funny nor particularly obvious as far as my actual identity goes? Well, because it's my blog name elsewhere, so why not here? After all, I clearly have a large following of readers who want to check out every last thing I decide to post somewhere on the internet. Why deprive them?

Monday, May 23, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home