Saturday, July 12, 2014

Today In "Both Sides Do It", Ctd. -- UPDATE


A guy walks into a psychiatrist's office and says, hey doc, my brother's crazy! He thinks he's a chicken. Then the doc says, why don't you turn him in? Then the guy says, I would but I need the eggs.

Woody Allen, Annie Hall

UPDATE:  Immigration attorney 'Rednand" confirms a critical fact:
DAVID BROOKS: ... The lack of enforcement, the lack of sending the kids back mostly happened under President Obama.
As an immigration lawyer who handles these cases I can tell you that this is a complete lie. Brooks is repeating the lie to conform with the most recent Repub narrative.

In fact, the law that Bush signed requires that kids with a potential adult sponsor be placed with the sponsor while their cases are reviewed in immigration court. Even without this requirement, if ANYBODY, child or adult, arrives at the border and claims asylum, they can't be just turned away. That would be unlawful, period.

Brooks has all the resources of the NYT to investigate and find out about this, but as usual he ignores the facts and mouths his both sides mantra.

Is it any wonder that I refuse to watch the PBS "Newshour" because they host this clown?

As it does every week, PBS's Carnival of Centrism once again put the New York Times' David Brooks on the air to explain stuff to people.

This is Mr. Brooks on the subject of John Boehner suing the President of the United States for trying to do his job:
DAVID BROOKS: There’s some merit, but I, of course, have sympathy for both sides.
This is Mr. Brooks on the humanitarian disaster unfolding on our southern border:
DAVID BROOKS: Yes. The responsibility goes both ways, though the original law, which was sort of a trafficking law, a good law, was passed under President Bush.
And why oh why does are system of government keep failing?

Well it seems there is a place called "Washington".

And in "Washington", there resides a group of people -- "we" -- who comprise, uh, everyone.

And "we" and are all equally and generally "dysfunctional".
DAVID BROOKS: ... So, basically, you normally pass a big piece of legislation like the ACA, the health care bill, and then you go back and fix it and the Congress and everybody cooperates to fix it. But because we’re so dysfunctional, we can’t do that.

DAVID BROOKS: ... But it does grow out of the general dysfunction, where you don’t have two parties working together to make an already passed law function
And when "we" are dysfunctional, "presidents" move in and grab power.
DAVID BROOKS: ... But there’s a natural tussle between the legislature and the White House, and presidents, especially when everything is dysfunctional, want to expand their power. The president has been quite unshy about that. And the legislature’s job is to push back.
And behave naughtily...
DAVID BROOKS: ... The lack of enforcement, the lack of sending the kids back mostly happened under President Obama.
Because even though everyone in Washington is equally dysfunctional, it's mostly Barack Obama's fault.

So, no surprise: put a microphone or keyboard in front of David Brooks and ask him any question about any political or cultural subject, and the automatically response will be the the same, lazy, pre-fabricated "No Labels" glop that has been his stock-in-trade every since the Bush Administration went tits-up and he had to find a new scam.

Yawn.

But the reason I commend this particular corner of the teevee universe to your attention today is that it's such a flawless little jewel of an example of Mr. Brooks' untreated mental illness about which I wrote last week:
...the walking, talking proof of how successfully the Times has bio-engineered a Conservative who, in his pastel-necktie, timid-voiced, aw-shucks manner, is every bit as delusional as any "Kenyan Usurper"-sign waving, Limbaugh-loving, wretch from the swamps of Sisterfuck, Arkansas.

By isolating him from all criticism and shoveling money at him, the Times has built a Brooks who can no longer cope with reality as you and I experience it because he doesn't have to.  And so, relieved of any need to be answerable to anyone, everything out here in the real world where you and I live has become nothing but a delightful set of abstractions to him: toys for Mr. Brooks to play with by remote control.
Observe how offhandedly Mr. Brooks trots right up his own ass when, in the space of about three minutes he talks a perfect circle, saying one thing one moment and then completely negating it the next. 

And, as always, per Beltway Media protocol, no one calls him on it.

First, however cruel it may be, David Brooks is certain that we must deport these refugee children, whose lived experience could not be further from that of a wealthy, pampered fraud like David Brooks if they were aliens fleeing Tencton.
DAVID BROOKS:  ...  I do think, until we deport them, that this flood will just continue to magnify and magnify. Treat the kids from Central America the way that we treat the kids from Mexico and Canada. And that’s cruel to send kids back, but, to me, it’s the only way to prevent the larger cruelty of this gigantic flow.
Second, according to David Brooks, the reason we are not taking this cruel-but-necessary step is because President Fails-To-Lead refuses to something something enforce the law!
DAVID BROOKS: ... The lack of enforcement, the lack of sending the kids back mostly happened under President Obama.
However, third, as Mark Shields very gently reminds his meal ticket, even if he wanted to, President Fails-To-Lead has no legal authority to do accede to Mr. Brooks' demands and summarily deport these children:
MARK SHIELDS: I’m not sure it is the right — but I will say this. David certainly is not suggesting you do that without changing the law.

DAVID BROOKS: Right. That’s what I meant. That’s what I meant.

MARK SHIELDS: Because the law — yes, the law is very, very clear on it, that each child is entitled to…
And finally, there is no virtually no chance that Congress will give President Fails-To-Lead the legal authority to summarily deport these children as Mr. Brooks suggests because of, uh, y'know, all the dysfunction and such:
DAVID BROOKS: And if you want to pass immigration reform, which I do, you have got to secure the border. But you’re just not going to get the votes any other way. And this is — what’s happened has been a devastating blow, I think, to whatever chances there were for immigration reform.
The second-easiest problem to identify in American politics is the poisonous, malignant "dysfunction" of the United States Congress.

But fart* and away the easiest problem to identify in American politics is that the poisonous "dysfunction" of the United States Congress is entirely the fault of the lunatics and bigots and nihilistic thugs who comprise Mr. Brooks' Republican Party.

And once again no honest observer can fail to notice that even as our Beltway media devotes the full weight of its massive resources to talking the poisonous, "dysfunction" of the United States Congress to death...it simultaneously devotes those same, vast resources to aborting any discussion of the obvious and malignant cause of that dysfunction.

Because they need the eggs.

In our next, exciting installment, if I can keep my lunch down, we may be discussing this response by Andrew Sullivan's response to a survey which shows that discussing politics stresses people out:
I get it. In a polarized, emotionally fraught polity, the news is almost always stressing you out. The digital media revolution has also meant countless new outlets trying to get market share by revving up one side or the other. For my part, absorbing all the news every day, and being in the arena of opinion from dawn to dusk, week after week, I can only say I am utterly unsurprised. There’s a reason David Brooks just writes chin-strokers and sociology these days: you try being him at the NYT...
Dear Andrew, I would love trying to be him at the NYT.  Hell, I'd even go Mr. Brooks one better and actually read and respond to the people who read my column!

Or if that position is not available at the NYT, I'll take The Atlantic
Or Esquire.
Or The Rolling Stone.
Or Slate.
Or MSNBC.
Or The New Yorker.
Or The Daily Dish.
Or Chicago Magazine.
Or, hell, The Penny Saver.

Meanwhile, having sorted through my daily barrage of "Dear Drift," send-us-cash-immediately emails from Democracy for America, Alan Grayson, et al, I have sussed out that today's Magic Fundraiser Word is "impeachment".

To date, no one from Democracy for America or Alan Grayson or "et" or "al" has responded to my standing offer to send them money once they help me find a job :-)

Until then, look for me at a matinee, with my wife, watching uplifted simians overthrowing the human race.


* heh :-)

13 comments:

dinthebeast said...

I read somewhere that there may have been consequences to some illegal wars that happened in Central America in the '80s and that those consequences might have never really gone away for the people who live there. But I don't know for sure because I've never been there and it was a long time ago.

-Doug in Oakland

Unsalted Sinner said...

Driftglass wrote "fart and away"... [Giggles like Beavis & Butthead]

steeve said...

Okay, suddenly this "both sides" thing is completely impossible.

"Both sides" is what a conservative says when caught. But big media players are never, ever caught.

Why does Brooks say variations on "yeah, whatever" a thousand times instead of simply saying that conservatism and rich people are the bestest things ever? What the hell is he afraid of?

What are any of them afraid of? Scathing comments from Pierce? Declining viewers? Getting fired for being a dumbass?

And if the puppet masters behind the scenes want their stooges to actually influence someone, why don't they fire the current ones for sucking at precisely that?

bowtiejack said...

Hey, tell Brooksie that Dr. Goebbels sends his regards.

Redhand said...

DAVID BROOKS: ... The lack of enforcement, the lack of sending the kids back mostly happened under President Obama.

As am immigration lawyer who handles these cases I can tell you that this is a complete lie. Brooks is repeating the lie to conform with the most recent Repub narrative.

In fact, the law that Bush signed requires that kids with a potential adult sponsor be placed with the sponsor while their cases are reviewed in immigration court. Even without this requirement, if ANYBODY, child or adult, arrives at the border and claims asylum, they can't be just turned away. That would be unlawful, period.

Brooks has all the resources of the NYT to investigate and find out about this, but as usual he ignores the facts and mouths his both sides mantra.

Is it ant wonder that I refuse to watch the PBS "Newshour" because they host this clown?

Anonymous said...

Steeve @ 12:17

“And if the puppet masters behind the scenes want their stooges to actually influence someone, why don't they fire the current ones for sucking at precisely that?”

You’re assuming that the puppet masters are smart or really give a shit. Being rich and powerful, or power-foul as it might be said, doesn’t equal smart or intelligent. At this point I think that it’s only the volume level that their interested in, not the delivery personnel and equipment.

Dan said...

Once again I would ask Butthole Brooks if both sides EQUALLY use guns to casually murder their fellow citizens or simply leave guns around for toddlers to ventilate other kids

Spirula said...

larger cruelty of this gigantic flow

And what "larger cruelty" would that be exactly? That these kids will feel safe and not live in fear? Have access to food and an education? Grow up with opportunities for a better life (although, increasingly that is becoming rarer here)?

Or the larger cruelty that da Brooks! has to know about them actually living in "his" country?

Thomas Adkins said...

You'll never get a job, let alone one that has benefits with that attitude, buster.

Go straight down the middle, baby. It pays.

Thomas Adkins said...

You'll never get a job with that attitude, buster.

Be like Davey and hit it straight down the middle. Where it pays.

steeve said...

"I think that it’s only the volume level that they're interested in, not the delivery personnel and equipment"

Then we're back to square one. Nobody has any reason to say "both sides", but can instead feel completely free to praise conservatism to the skies no matter how dumb it sounds. But they don't.

Anonymous said...

Steeve @ 12:45

“Then we’re back to square one. Nobody has any reason to say “both sides”…”

Sorry, I wasn’t very clear in my response. I agree that the “puppet masters” are interested in the message that their puppets are sending (both sides, and the rest of the regular talking points). All I was responding to was your question about the people sending the message (Brooks, Friedman, Gregory et al) and why they don’t fire them for incompetence. My point was that they’re really not that interested in the messenger or the quality of the delivery of the message, only the volume and repetition of the message being delivered, and that you were assuming that they’re smart enough or really give a shit about the quality of the messenger. An intelligent person would ask themselves the question you asked, but we’re talking about people like Dick Cheney, the Koch brothers, the Bush cabal. These people are blunt instruments, they’re not into nuance and thoughtful reflection of their actions. Hell, Dick Cheney shot his friend in the head and didn’t even stop to say “OOPs”, he just kept on going.

For all intents and purposes “conservatism” has become the local chapter of Sociopaths are us.

PS Thanks for correcting my grammar. I used their when I meant they’re.

Dan said...

I can't remember when he said it but I heard Rush say this verbatim
" Liberals like nuance"
So Limbaugh has a solid point there.
His ilk doesn't DO nuance.