Does being stoned lead to writing awful columns?

Hmmm, I do not know, I guess it might depend on how much you smoked in high school and college, but Stacy McCain sees a possible connection between toking it up, and becoming David Brooks!

David Brooks confessed in a New York Times column that he was a high-school stoner, by way of arguing against the legalization of marijuana. One of his erstwhile dope buddies replied with a column recalling how they got away with it in Radnor, Illinois:

[H]ere all along I thought he quit because of that time we got pulled over by the Radnor cops in senior year right after we’d clambaked his Mom’s Vista Cruiser, and first thing the cop does after the smoke clears is look him right in his red, red eyes, and said, “I don’t suppose it would go over so good if I went over to 632 Haverford Road and told Mr and Mrs Brooks their boy was out here with his clique smoking pot.” I was so impressed with the way Dave pulled himself together then. He didn’t beg for mercy or fight with the cop. Somehow he knew exactly how to go all bar mitzvah boy, how to talk to authority, how to flatter and impress and toady, even stoned to the gills, like his inner Eddie Haskell was deeper down than the pot could get. And it worked. The cop let us go, told us we were lucky he knew Dave and that we were white kids from Radnor, and later on, at the pizza house taking care of our munchies, chattering and cackling over our good luck and trying to figure out how Dave and the cop knew each other, busting on him for being a narc, Dave was quiet and pale and barely touched his hoagie, and I think that was the last time he smoked pot, at least with us.

Brooks’s ex-buddy Gary Greenberg is pro-legalization, whereas I think his anecdote proves quite the opposite point: We need a drastic crackdown on teenage dopeheads because if we don’t put these freaks in prison, they might grow up to be David Brooks.

While it is always fun, and darned easy to mock David “Pants Crease” Brooks this does raise a serious question. Should we legalize pot? The Libertarian in me says sure, the less government in our lives the better. The Conservative in me worries that we should never encourage something as stupid, and wasteful of brain cells as pot smoking. Which side of my thinking is right? I think there are good arguments on both sides, I honestly do. I also have known a lot of pot smokers in my life, mostly co-workers that I knew indulged, but did not wish to hang out with, mainly because potheads annoy me while they are stoned. Some of these folks are good people, smart, hard working. Some are Conservatives. And yes some are brain dead Liberals. Some are lazy. But all of those things could be said of people I know that do not indulge as well. And, all of those things could be said of people who drink as well.

In the end, I suppose I am just not keen on government nannies dictating such behaviors. I see the benefits, and drawbacks of curtailing the drug war by legalizing pot. I really do not care if pot is made legal. Generally I am for allowing things that do not harm others. But, to be honest I would never be OK with legalizing cocaine or heroine. Maybe that makes me hypocritical. Or maybe it just means that this issue is not high on my list of prioritized issues. 

Is every Republican Pundit named David an idiot??

I only ask this question because David Frum, whom I despise, and David Brooks are both idiots. Brooks is the media’s favorite Republican, AKA  a useful idiot. He got the role of favored Republican because he goes on TV and says the things about Conservatives that the media wants to hear. Stacy McCain, who holds no respect for Brooks either, takes great pleasure in sharing this video clip of Brooks being verbally horse-whipped for being, well, a idiot!

Appearing on “Meet the Press,” David Brooks declared that intellectual strength commands support for the Gang of Eight bill:

“You know, I’ve seen a lot of intellectually weak cases in this town. I’ve rarely seen as intellectually a weak case is the case against the Senate immigration bill.”

And then Rep. Raul Labrador ripped Brooks to tatters:

OUCH! That will leave a mark

 

The most galling thing about David Brooks?

Hmmm, tough one, there is his incredible ability to turn out bad columns on a regular basis. His willingness to bend over backwards to be the Republican the Left likes A.K.A. the Useful Idiot. Then there is his habit of bashing Conservatives that actually stand for something while Brooks stands for nothing. Smitty has a post up mocking Brooks, and there is one sentence from Brooks latest NY Times snoozer that struck a nerve.

Two things are constant, and there are three things rivaling the sunrise for invariance: death, taxes, and the codpiece-like dumbness of David Brooks:

Over the past month, the Republican Party has changed far more than I expected. First, the people at the ideological extremes of the party have begun to self-ghettoize. The Tea Party movement attracted many people who are drawn to black and white certainties and lock-step unity. People like that have a tendency to migrate from mainstream politics, which is inevitably messy and impure, to ever more marginal oases of purity.
Jim DeMint, for example, is leaving the Senate to go lead the Heritage Foundation. He is leaving the center of the action, where immigration, tax and other reforms will be crafted, for a political advocacy organization known more for ideological purity and fund-raising prowess than for creativity, curiosity or intellectual innovation.

Note that last highlighted portion. Especially the criticism of the Heritage Foundation. Brooks is mocking a group that actually HAS an ideological compass? Brooks, who has no ideological balls whatsoever? What we have is a little man with a little brain, a man who has done nothing of real note, a man who stands for whatever he thinks will ingratiate him to Liberals. And this man is mocking men and women who actually believe in fighting for their principles (which Brooks dismisses as ideological purity)? Damn that makes me angry! What bugs me most here is that it was ideological purity that gave birth to this nation. Our Founders were not like Brooks, they knew right from wrong, they knew what they stood for, and they risked their very lives to give birth to this nation. Of course, David Brooks would never take a stand, lest he not get invited to Beltway cocktail parties. Call me an ideological purist, but I resent men of honor being dismissed by walk-behinders like Brooks!

 

Heartache! David Brooks sees…. WHITE PEOPLE!

Imagine if there was a drinking game where you took a shot every time David Brooks said, or wrote something inane. I guess we would all be passed out a lot! Via Newsbusters

DAVID BROOKS, NEW YORK TIMES: Yeah, first I would say the conventional wisdom among Republican donors and Washington officialdom is that Marco Rubio isn’t ready to be vice president…

GREGORY: Yeah.

Marco Rubio is not ready to be VP? Possibly, but Brooks is certainly a guy who is not ready to be a nationally syndicated columnist, so let’s reserve any judgement on Rubio’s readiness shall we? Brooks continues

BROOKS: …emotionally. And so I think Rob Portman, senator from Ohio, he’s–Ohio sort of matters, he might help. But basically the, the goal for a challenger in an, in an incumbent election is, are those guys decent enough?

BROOKS: Now a Romney/Portman race would be like a bunch of boring white guys. So it wouldn’t be like scintillating, but it would be, oh, they’re decent enough.

Oh no! not  White guys! Sorry, I do not think that would matter much. Sure, it would hurt Romney with race-obsessed voters who are already in the tank for Obama, but with most people, the big issue starts with an “E” and ends in “conomy”. David Brooks ought to try thinking. It beats saying what you think you are supposed to say!

Santorum loves him some social engineering

Don Surber nails it!

 

Should Republicans follow Rick Santorum’s lead and offer a tax credit to low-wage young men to make them more “marriageable”?

NO.

This is a particularly bad idea that James Taranto identified as “Sexual Socialism,” but then did not really explain why this is such a terrible idea. His argument is that David Brooks of the New York Times thinks this is a good idea, so it must be a bad one. That’s a convincing argument, but let me take it one step further.

This is a lousy idea because it perverts the tax code once again to do some social engineering.  Instead of simply collecting taxes to support the government, Congress and the president would use if for behavior modification. We already do $1 trillion worth of socialistic behavior modification by offering tax deductions and tax credits for everything from having a child to what sort of dishwasher you buy. At election time, these are referred to both as “tax loopholes” and as help for the middle class. It depends on whose ox the federal government is subsidizing.

Again, Santorum and his “Social Conservatism” prove my theory that you cannot trust a man wearing a sweater vest. Good Grief!

 

Has David Brooks finally realized what the rest of us have long known?

That he is, well, not nearly as bright, or insightful as he thinks he is? Usually some blogger or another is fisking Brooks. Now, though, he seems to be engaging in self-fisking

Aside from perhaps admiring the crease in Obama’s pants, nearly three years to the date after that party at Will’s house, Brooks admits he had the president completely wrong.

On Thursday’s “The Laura Ingraham Show,” Brooks said he still admired Obama, but conceded the president was more liberal than he originally thought.

“Yeah, I still like him — admire him personally,” Brooks said. “He’s certainly more liberal than I thought he was. And he’s more liberal than he thinks he is. He thinks he is just slightly center-left. But when you got down to his instincts, they’re pretty left. And his problem is he can’t really act on them because it would be political disaster. And so that means, I think he is doing very little — proposing very little.”

The first step to recovery is noting that you have a problem. Brooks may have just taken that first step. Wait, who am I kidding, Brooks will be back to writing inanities soon enough.