Because Friday was a day that ended in a "y", course Mr. David Brooks of the New York Times was to be found somewhere in America, in front of a substantial audience, troweling out his fragrant brand of Both Siderism with both hands.
And because Friday was a day that ended in a "y", no one stopped him.
From the PBS News Hour:
DAVID BROOKS:...But the larger issue here with both the Syrian and the Iranian thing is sometimes when you lean in and do something, you get blamed for it, the Iraq war. Sometimes, when you lean out and don’t do anything, you get blamed for it, Syria.And so you got to have a foreign policy that is very tied to the circumstance at hand. Is this a smart move in this particular space? My problem, in retrospect, with the Bush administration, they were like leaning in all the time. My problem with the Obama administration is they’re leaning out all the time.And so neither are that context-specific. And I think that’s just a lesson we have learned from the last two administrations.
One theory holds that, as a neocon, David Brooks can only get it up when the United States is invading some country, somewhere.
Ergo Brooks blames Obama for killing his marriage.
Another theory holds that Brooks is just a shit who lies for money.
I say, "Teach the controversy".
11 comments:
There is something very Daddy Party and Mommy Party about this... in his very curious use of "leaning in." Obama and the Democrats are Mommies because they are leaning out. He would like them to Man Up by shooting themselves in the foot a few times like W. Equating W's warmongering with *leaning in* is pretty funny. We're all leaning out because we have been left aghast at Republican foreign policy for the last... I don't know, since Ike? Otherwise, it is standard Brooks, so enamored of the English 101 parallelism lesson that asymmetry will be forever outside his ken and sheep pen.
Good morning, Mr. Glass.
So when you do things, you get blamed for doing things?
I know you have the "Peggy Noonan's drunk all the time" thing, but is it possible that Mr. Brooks is stoned all the time?
Be seeing you.
"One theory holds that, as a neocon, David Brooks can only get it up when the United States is invading some country, somewhere.
Ergo Brooks blames Obama for killing his marriage.
Another theory holds that Brooks is just a shit who lies for money.
"Both sides" would be the correct answer.
There's a hell of a difference between leaning in here and a catastrophic war and leaning out, which amounts to not getting into another war. David Brooks must know this and if he doesn't, he's an idiot.
My problem with the Obama administration is they’re leaning out all the time.
Really? Taking the daring move of flying a covert military op into Pakistan to kill Osama Bin Laden was "leaning out"?
Authorizing a bombing campaign that was a material factor in "regime change" in Libya was "leaning out"?
Of course, no one at PBS pointed out to DFB that his both-sider conceit was bullshit. That would be "impolite.'
Off topic: 16 years have passed, but I still miss the Moon.
;)
"Leaning in?" Over a million Iraqis dead, and this lubricated tube sock describes the responsible parties as "leaning in?" Brooks hasn't met a deadline yet that could escape being shit on by him.
As you point out, Brooks is just another pocket-lining neo-con who thinks that the U.S. should keep "intervening" in world affairs until the whole population of the world wears khaki slacks, hounds-tooth check sports shirts, and speaks in a carefully moderated, reasonable tone of voice. Damn what a dreary thought.
A wordsmith using words as his own insurance policy of no responsibility.
It has always caused me to reach for a bottle of aspirin or a baseball bat when I listen to folks espousing insidiously, as Brooks does.
It is their insistent use of language as pronouns and verbs.
I. Case in point,
* "We" have to do better blah-blah blah.
Yet, when it doesn’t p layout the way they ordered it. They lose the “WE” and it is “you” failed.
* "OUR" performance has been evaluated and "WE" found that "We" must focus on more efficiency in performing the production "our" shareholders and customers expect of "US". "We need to be more aware of cost overruns, limit production down times in particular. So "let’s” get out there and perform.
The "WE” when they mean "YOU" is so inane but telling.
Brooks will speak of how "WE" need to Lean in (use military force) or "HE" thinks "WE" should lean out.
*When Brooks says "WE" he means someone else. This resolves him of responsibility. So if "WE" lean in with the militarily and it goes cesspool south. That is when "WE" becomes "YOU”,” THEM, THEY, THEIR< THOSE, OTHERS" pronouns of relieving self of any responsibility and pointing to blame. So in his mind, "HIS" leadership views as safe without failure. It was those that failed.
Brooks takes great care to insulate himself from self responsibility. Brooks will never be a ground pounder in the streets of Iraq. Never will he actually be an elected official with the responsibility that comes with it. Because he knows so little of the actual reality he writes of, it is easy for him to pontificate (or is it defecate) with never having any responsibility nor sacrifice or risk of personal credible experience.. Because his world is what others provide for him.
Brooks may offer a sentence of solace to wounded veterans as he offers paragraphs blaming Obama as Commander In Chief for them receiving a bullet from the enemy. Going on to say "WE" should have leaned out when "WE" should have leaned in. When he means himself instead of “WE”.
-Floating the blame is an instrument to insulate ones self from responsibility.
Which Brooks never accepts for himself, but shall take great pride as "HE" Tells "US" how "WE" Failed.
An ideological words-smith's insurance policy to insulate his responsibility of failure.
Do they have this problem with pronoun usage in other countries? In other languages?
To be sure,
We will find in the next episode in Brookisms for ALL SIDES, our hero pontiff Brooks discusses the intricacies of "Toe-Dipping" in the pool to check how cold (or warm) it might be.
Your final jab, that Brooks blames Obama for the impotence that ended his marriage, may be the best thing I have read in weeks. I'm going to be laughing about that for days. Thank you.
Post a Comment