I wonder who is more exasperated, Paul Krugman, who has to read David Brooks, or David Brooks who has to put up with Krugman constantly humiliating him? Whatever the answer, at some point the editors should put Brooks and their readership of out their misery and decide which columnist to keep. Watching them try to co-exist is just painful and cringe-inducing.
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.
8 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Does the GOP base even know who “Bobo” is?
Yes, he’s Krauthammer’s favorite liberal.
If the NYT had to choose, sadly, it is clear which way they would go
I’m sure Brooks is too clueless even to notice; also, too, having the scratch to buy a four-million dollar home can insulate one from just about any embarrassment.
Does it sell papers and draw eyeballs? If so, likely both of them are peachy keen about the drama.
Perhaps Brooks meant that not a single reader of his column has been pursuaded to switch sides. Or something.
Hahaha! But I believe he suffers from really acute math anxiety, can’t understand a word, and being Brooks assumes that it’s all fakery on both sides. He knows that somebody once published on “How to Lie with Statistics” but couldn’t read it.
BooMan, Professor K is being extremely kind and generous to Brooks in that post, going as far as he can without being strictly dishonest–the way you might to a very smart but poorly educated student. He only tackles the one point where Brooks is doing positive harm, and passes over the most hilarious and humiliating part in silence (maybe he expects Nate Silver to take a turn, though).
If Brookes means that some people will remain willfully ignorant and persist in a factless reality then he is correct.