Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Matthew Dowd Remains a Fundamentally Ridiculous Person

Because being ridiculed by fascists and democrats is all the same to ABC New's chief political analyst.

January isn't even out of diapers yet and already I'm wearing the corner off of this thing:

It's the old David Brooks minuet.
  • Republicans do something monstrous.
  • Brooks automatically blames Both Sides.
  • Liberals say, seriously, WTF is your problem?
  • Conservatives say you're a lousy sellout Libtard cuck because Benghaaaaziiii, baby parts, Freeeeedumb!
  • Brooks gives himself many Good Boy Journalism Points because now Both Sides are Mad.  Yay!
You know, it's probably long past time to repost "David Brooks Files a Police Report" because clinging fanatically to this brand of lazy, absurd, accountability-free drivel is clearly how most of the hogs feeding at the Beltway trough plan to keep making bank during the Failed Trump Administration:

The Beast that Shouted Love at the Heart of the Congress with His Head Up His Ass While Sucking His Own Balls

Based on his latest 800-word New York Times Centrist embarrassment,
This ethos has dissolved, on left and right. The new mentality sees the country not as an equilibrium, but as a battlefield in which the people, who are pure and virtuous, do battle against the interests or the elites, who stand in the way of the people’s happiness.

The ideal leader in this mental system is free from moral anxiety but full of passionate intensity. This leader pushes his troops in lock step before the voracious foe. Each party has its own version of whom the evil elites are, but both feel they’ve more to fear from their enemies than from their own sinfulness.

Compromise is thus impossible. Money matters should be negotiable, but how can one compromise with opponents who are the source of all corruption?
(and yes, every fucking bit of the rest of it is like that) I would hate to have to read a David Brooks police report.

Officer: So you say you saw who mugged you, sir?

Brooks: Yes. It was a big guy. With a bat. Also liberals were involved.

Officer: Leaving aside the liberals for a moment, what did this "big guy" look like?

Brooks: About six foot. Maybe 200 pounds. White. But the Democrats unreasonable position on Medicare contributed...

Officer: Like I said, sir; we'll get back to the Democrats and liberals later. Now about the man who mugged you. Could you describe what kind of clothes he had on?

Brooks: Yes. He was wearing a "Bush/Cheney '04" t-shirt, a tri-corner hat and was carrying one of those "Don't Tread On Me" flags. (pauses) Officer, you seem to be deliberately ignoring the liberal involvement here.

Officer: No sir -- I'm writing all of it down. It's just important that we start with the facts.

Brooks: Well the fact is, officer, that Democrats are clearly implicated here as well as a fringe nutcase who in no way represents the main body of Conservative thinking.

Officer: Alrighty then, Mr. Brooks, you seem to be going into shock or maybe you have a slight concussion, so lets try coming at this another way. You say you were mugged, right?

Brooks: I was definitely mugged. Assaulted and mugged.

Officer: OK, then. How many people were physically holding the baseball bat? How many different people had their hands on it?

Brooks (pauses): Uh...just the one guy.

Officer: The man with the "Bush/Cheney '04" t-shirt?

Brooks (pauses): Yes.

Officer: And how many people actually said to you -- and I quote -- "Gimme your fucking wallet or I'll fucking kill you you fucking Commie"?
Said that out loud.
In your presence.
During the mugging.

Brooks: Well, technically it was that one guy, but...

Officer: And how many separate and distinct people actually hit you in the face with the bat?

Brooks: The one guy.

Officer: The one man with the "Bush/Cheney '04" t-shirt?

Brooks: Yes.

Officer: And how many people -- physical, real people -- were within, say, 30 feet of that one guy? At any time during the incident?

Brooks: Well that is very hard to say. I mean, there was a lot going on, what with the one guy screaming at me and hitting me in the face with the bat, and the Democrats causing an equal amount of...

Officer: Oh, I'm sure it was frighting, sir. Very frightening. But it would make my job a lot easier if right now you could just tell me how many other, physical, real people were within 30 feet of that one guy.

Brooks: Well, if I had to guess.

Officer: Yes.

Brooks: -- and this is just an approximation, you understand?

Officer: Of course.

Brooks: I'd have to say...around...

Officer: Yes.

Brooks: Generally...

Officer: Yes.

Brooks: Roughly...

Officer: Yes.

Brooks: In the vicinity of...

Officer: Yes.

Brooks: Bordering on...

Officer: Yes.

Brooks: Verging between...

Officer: Yes.

Brooks: Ballpark...

Officer: I've got all day sir.

Brooks: Más o menos...

Officer: Yes.

Brooks: Somewhere between, maybe, five...

Officer: Yes.

Brooks: And...none.

Officer: And closer to which of those two numbers -- five and none -- would you say would be more accurate?

Brooks: (long whistle) Well the range is potentially unlimited, isn't it? I mean, what with geometric regression and Nancy Pelosi and rounding errors and Harry Reid and fractals...

Officer: Would it help your memory if I told you we have the whole thing on tape?

Brooks: Oh.

Officer: (pointing) See those two cameras? The one on that bank over there and a traffic camera across the street?

Brooks: Uh.

Officer: Between them, they'll give us a very accurate count of how many physical, real people were involved.

Brooks: Oh.

Officer: So you were estimating something about it being between five and none?

Brooks: Uh, let's just go with "none" then. To keep it simple.

Officer: Of course sir. So there were no people other than you and the assailant within 30 feet of the incident. How about 50 feet?

Brooks: None.

Officer: 100 feet?

Brooks: None.

Officer: So it would be fair to say, then, that the entire street was deserted except for you and the big man in the Republican t-shirt, and Tea Party flag and hat who called you -- and, again, I'm quoting -- a "fucking Commie"...

Brooks: Yes.

Officer: ...clubbed you on the head...

Brooks: Yes.

Officer: ...and stole your wallet.

Brooks: Yes, yes, yes. If you want to be a pedant about it, technically that is a description with which I cannot disagree.

Officer: "Pedant" is a big part of my job description, sir.

Brooks: I see. So are we through?

Officer: Not quite sir. A few minutes ago you were quite worked up over some people you seemed to imply were in some way conspiring with big man in the Republican t-shirt, and Tea Party flag and hat.

Flips through his notebook.

Officer: You identified a "Nancy Pelosi" and a "Harry Reid" by name, and implicated two groups called "liberals" and "Democrats".

Brooks: Finally! Yes! The Liberals!

Officer: Now if you would be good enough to point to exactly where these persons and groups were located relative to the crime scene.

Brooks: I don't understand.

Officer: I mean, did you see Nancy Pelosi in one of those windows up there? Perhaps talking to your assailant on a cell phone?

Brooks: Of course not.

Officer: Did you hear a group of these "Liberals" hiding around the corner shouting instructions? Or maybe this "Harry Reid" person drove past you in a car in a threatening manner?

Brooks: No. It doesn't work like that.

Officer: What "doesn't work like that"?

Brooks: (mutters inaudibly)

Officer: I'm sorry sir, could you speak up please? I couldn't hear you.

Brooks: "Centrism", alright? I said "Centrism"?

Officer: Meaning...what?

Brooks: Meaning that Liberals don't actually have to be present or in any way involved to be blameworthy.

Officer: So they're...invisible Liberals?

Brooks: No, no! You don't understand. They're not "invisible"; they're...uh...implicit. See, implicit in everything that guy with the bat did, there is a liberal counter-move or opposite-thingie which makes the Left equally to blame.

Officer stares silently.

Brooks: And that is where the real detective work begins.

Officer: The "real" detective work?

Brooks: Of course! Any idiot can look at mere evidence and blame the crazy Republican with the bat, but a real detective knows he has to keep looking and looking and looking and looking until he figures out the secret Liberal-counter-recto-converse thingie which makes the crazy Republican with a bat and Nancy Pelosi equally to blame.

Officer: Fascinating. Then what happens?

Brooks: Then you write it up in 800-words for the New York Times, go home to your suburban mansion and wait for huge bags of money to arrive.

Officer: Is that all?

Brooks: Basically. You also get invited onto national teevee and radio talk shows where your repeat your column word-for-word, but that's just beer money.

Officer: And that's what you think "real detective work" is?

Brooks: Sure. What else would you call it?

Officer: I'm sure I don't know, sir. I'm a trained police detective and all I see here is one Republican who has been beaten and mugged by another Republican.

Brooks: Ah, but to the truly trained eye, Officer, the implicit Liberalness here is evident.

Officer: (sighs) Mr. Brooks , "implicit" is from a Latin word. "Implicitus". It means "interwoven".

Brooks: You know Latin?

Officer: Yes sir.

Brooks: (mutters) Fuck me.

Officer: So explain to my untrained eye exactly in what way are Liberals "interwoven" with a crime committed against you on an empty street by a crazed Republican with a baseball bat?

Brooks: (petulant) Look, that's just the way it works.

Officer: The way what works?

Brooks: "Centrism".

Officer: So according to this "Centrism", every time a Republican assaults someone, somewhere out there is a Liberal who is at least equally to blame for it?

Brooks: Correct.

Officer: And every time a Liberal does something wrong, a Republican is also at fault?

Brooks: No, every time a Liberal does something wrong Conservatism is vindicated and Ronald Reagan smiles down on us from Heaven.

Officer: I see. (closes his notebook) I think I have all I need here.

Brooks: So what happens now?

Officer: Now we pick this guy up. Based on the description you gave us -- Republican in a funny hat who screams "Commie" at random strangers before smacking them with a baseball bat -- it shouldn't be that hard.

Brooks: And Nancy Pelosi too?

Officer: No, not Nancy Pelosi too; we pedants in the police department are limited to acting only on actual evidence.

Brooks: Then what?

Officer: Then we book him, you ID him, it goes to court and he goes to prison.

Brooks: Oh no, no, no. We can't do that.

Officer: Excuse me?

Brooks: We can't do that.

Officer: Is there a problem?

Brooks: (drops his voice) Honestly, if there is any way for you to just discreetly get my wallet back and let the rest of it drop... (trails off)

Officer: Mr. Brooks, some very serious crimes have been committed here, and but for a little bit of luck you could be lying dead in the street. And given what you've told me, if we act quickly there is a very good chance we can catch the person who did it, put him behind bars and keep him from hurting anyone else.

Brooks: And I appreciate that, but you must understand, there are wider implications.

Officer: What are you taking about? This guy's a violent lunatic -- with club -- who is walking around ripping people off and then smashing them in the head? Why in the world would you not want to press charges against him?

Brooks: (Looks around nervously and whispers) Because he's my boss.


Ozsportsdude said...

If Dowd won't admit that he is not centrist or independent, but is in fact a disillusioned Republican angry at his own party for not following his idea of conservatism but who as a Republican has always hated Democrats, then the poor man will maybe just maybe stop lying to himself at the very least

Robt said...

Nothing like reviewing the classics as the "brooks police report" to raise the irony spirits. I agree, it is time to repost it.

Dowd who is Brooks minus 1.5 version. Feels the urge to publically find some semblance of solace for voting with the White Supremacists (KKK) so he can get his tax cuts.
Not to worry, he can always write some sort of column regarding the Veterans missing body parts from war in need of V.A. funding, and how both parties flub on the promise to provide the care they need. That should make up for cutting funding to the V.A. that provides that very care to redistribute that money in tax cuts.
But hey, if Trump doesn't have to pay taxes to cover V.A. care and still be popular on twitter,. Even after proclaiming he hold disregard for those soldiers that get capture. 2 inches away from disliking soldiers who are so unsafe in a war zone to get themselves seriously wounded.

Isn't it obvious matthew Dowd is deeply immersed into the toilet bowl of media that produces gobble de goop for ratings.

There is one cure for this Bothsiderism illness. No matter what someone as Dowd feels of a war that is just or not to engage in.
Lets draft him, train him and teach him his enemy is whoever they say it is at the moment. Shove him smack in face to face with his newly Gov't declared "enemy"..
Tell him to utilize his training and kill or be killed. Knowing the other side (enemy) are put face to face with Dowd and told the same thing.
And let us see if he can find a fence in a war zone to sit on and prevaricate ceasefire by one side or the other from the top of that fence and how that plays out.

We didn't start the fire, So sings Billy Joel.

What seriously is disappointing is when someone somehow arises to a position as Dowd where he certainly can make a real difference with the media arena (reaching many) he now finds himself in. That he uses this media gift like a lazy cat brought in to demouse but finds the couch so comfortable he can't get himself off it..

I would suggest to his employer, get another cat or get a hungry aggressive dog to motivate the cat from the couch.

Ian said...

Previous comment suggests Dowd was brought in to demouse. Dowd is doing exactly what he is paid to do.

Lit3Bolt said...

"I've flung poo at both sides, this proves I'm an intellectual juggernaut!"

Another day, another Very Serious Villager strutting and preening for his self-admittedly non-existent fans.

Political journalism's audience is itself. It's masturbating in front of a mirror, all day every day. Their corporate sinecures are secure, and they will never be fired as long as they are always wrong in the right ways.

Lit3Bolt said...

Since the United States is accelerating into a banana republic, and this is ok for Very Serious People Who Wish For Civility Above All Else, it might be time to create a Villager Oath of Office, to mark how full of shit Broder, Brooks, Sullivan, Dowd, Frum, Todd, Tapper, Tweety, et al. have been about Obama, and watch them grovel and preen before Trump because he was Teh Chosen One Who Brought Balance To The Force by bringing down the Sith Lord Darth Hillary.

crweaver said...

The principle underlying the 'Police Report' can be summed up as: for every action by a conservative, there is an equally objectionable and opposite action by some liberal - Centrist Newtonian physics! But the reverse is not necessarily true - the operation is non-commutative.