Discussion for article #224662
'Paul Krugman is great; you suck,
well , yeah. duh?
āAnd those are the ones that like me. The ones that donāt like me throw rocks and pig poop.ā
I think in my whole life Iāve had two people come up and be nasty to meā¦
That actually doesnāt surprise me. I frequently/usually disagree with him, but for me, at least, he doesnāt inspire the sort of personal animosity that many of the wingnuts do.
āI used to read them, but it was just too psychologically damaging,ā Brooks told Yahoo Newsā Katie Couric during an interview at the Aspen Ideas Festival on Tuesday. āSo then I would ask my assistant to read them.ā
Wow. His precious mind is too delicate to hear strongly-worded criticism so he makes his assistant deal with it? How noble and courageous of him.
Heās a job creator!!!
We cannot help it if Brooks doesnāt understand basic economics and lives in a fantasy world where he contstantly defends the likes of Bush-2, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, and all the people that brought the nationās and almost the world economy to a virtual standstill in 2008. He is so over-rated, and probably should be doing a column on a South Dakota newspaper reporting on stray dogs. Heās just not very bright.
daveminnjā¦ still laughing.
āPaul Krugman is great; you suckā: as true today as it was back in 2003.
two points:
soā¦
- brooks is too delicate and psychologically traumatized to read the comments to his pieces, so assigns that task to a friggin intern;
- heās only had 2 people approach him to call him out as the asshole he isā¦ which means, he either rarely leaves his house; or when he does, itās well within the safe confines of that cloistered (gated?) sanctuary where his similarly appointed cocktail/dinner pals reside.
Because after a while it all just looks like one big, You suck. He gets it but doesnāt want to be reminded every day because it blurs his blurred vision of himself not sucking. That is confusing.
itās obvious he never reads what we write. i just wish heād read krugman once in a while so maybe he wouldnāt always have to sound like a total assclown.
Helpful hints from David: Ignore them and they donāt exist.
Taibbi on Brooks - āItās just weird, confused, old-person bitterness, mixed in with the
usual obnoxious conservative delusions ā like the way fiscal
irresponsibility is always poor people buying wide-screen TVs on credit,
and never teams of Ivy Leaguers at places like Lehman Brothers running
up trillion-dollar balance sheets at 40-1 leverage.ā
Tell us something that we donāt already knowā¦
Letās be as nice as we can: heās not the absolute worst NYT opinion column writer ever in the entire history of the Grey Lady, and possibly arguably sometimes not the worst with a current regular gig there.
Possibly. Arguably. Sometimes. Cuz Douthat.
āPaul Krugman is great; you suck.ā is just such a classic brooksian false dichotomy, it leaves me wondering if we are just merely puppets of grand designer with a cruelly ironic sense of humor
Being fair: Itās not directed at the assistant, who has no personal emotional connection to Brooks at a deep level (most likely), so itās not exactly painful for the assistant other than boredom.
And Iām sorry, but you can dislike David Brooks all you want - he was definitely not the highlight of my NYT subscription - but there are few people who arenāt outright cracked in the head that could actually take reading that much directed negativity. You think the President could stand to read that much said about him without frequent breaks for positivity? When he even has the time to read that stuff, I mean.
The natural reactions are depression and bitterness and Brooks just took pretty reasonable steps to protect his mental health. I wish heād get the hint that heās wrong, mind, but I canāt find fault in him as an individual for this.
Well, David dear
If the Foo shits
You have to wear it
Or die scraping it off.
Well to be fair, heās right.
Krugman IS great, and Brooks DOES suck.