NYT's David Brooks Is to Fluff as Marshmallows are to Fluffernutter

David Brooks just doesn't get it.  That was amply proven here.

But "relax" he wrote on Monday.   Forget the breakdown of our national media -- aka our "Fourth Estate"-- or the increasing level of misinformation shaping our national "debates," the increasingly ill thought out laws, and rhetoric coming out of Congress, and most troubling of all the increasing gap between rhetoric and reality:

America's not "headed" in the wrong direction, because America has a lot of young people, and will have even more in the future! And because:

Developers have been filling in with neo-downtowns — suburban gathering spots where people can dine, work, go to the movies and enjoy public space.

Wow, that is so much more than the far more trivial issues mentioned above that help shape and define our actual democracy.

Oh, Brooks adds, perhaps not fully understanding what the word "headed in the direction of" means, we are also headed in the right direction because we are way more productive than China.  Please China, stay repressed and non productive, so we can be headed in the right direction.   The otherwise irrelevant fact that China has gained on us?  According to Brooks, evidence we are headed in the right direction.

But then Brooks, to put it nicely, is essentially somebody who often really doesn't know what he is talking about. Perhaps that is why he has a job as a columnist.  The lowest common denominator, more often than not,rises to the top.  Increasingly, today, in "headed in the right direction" America.

A few more provocative examples here, here -- and, for a contrary point that still manages to agree at least on the point of believing Brooks, once again, to be wrong, here.

We Don't Like the Bill for Specific Reasons, But Why Exactly Don't Tea Partiers Like the Health Care Reform Bill

Someone asked via email:

What is the far right mad about?  It upsets me that this Admin' and many Democrats think it's a good thing to force people to get health insurance.  The argument being I guess that the 'system' can not work unless everyone has health insurance.  I don't buy that, but even if so.....

I think our government has no right to do this. But then I'm an unusual Democrat; I guess just by default more than anything.  I am more opposed to the government forcing stuff on people than most people. At least stuff that does not go to protect other people's rights.  Like the right to clean air or water, or to reasonable freedom from excessive pollution and bio-accumulating toxins.  The right to some privacy, etc. 

Fluoride in drinking water is a good example of overwrought government -- crazy as that sounds. I like doing things collective that make sense and don't impinge upon freedom. I see a potential health issue here where people have concerns about it that at least according to some medicine are legitimate; and thus see the forced inclusion of this in everyone's water supply as somewhat of an outrageous and needless philosophical imposition, and stupid. If there is concern, just give people toothpaste, for crying out loud.  Let it be up to them to brush their teeth regularly.  So I see things differently.

But is this what the far right is mad about? That it "forces" people to get health insurance that they largely really have anyway? They seemed to favor so much big, intruding government under the Bush administration that it was scary. And they seem to favor a lot of big government stuff; more unchecked power - so long as it is not Obama or another Democrat who has it; a bigger fear of differing opinions and different types of people; more rules regarding personal choices and morality, more government intrusion into what are individual, private decisions; and more stereotyping by group or race.  May be this is wrong, but that's the way it seems to me. But what is it about this health care plan that has them so riled? Have they ever said, or has it just become pure rhetoric all the time?

Is it that employers are forced to get health insurance for employees? I think I'm against that too. Probably big time. But I probably need more information; am no expert on the economics or the philosophy of it.

This seemed like a good question. We hear all the time how many who are political opponents of Democrats hate this bill. But what specifically about the bill is it that they hate?

Maybe HERE's why they don't like it:

Glenn Rounsevell, 88, a retired State Department employee from Falls Church [Virginia], said this year he will vote the tea party way. "It's terrible," he said of the new health care law, "because of the amount of money that is being proposed and the way it was put together in secret."

Of course. It was all a secret. The Republicans tried and tried to participate to create a better bill, but the Dems just shut them, and everybody out. Hell,nobody even said the words health care reform" in America until what, two weeks ago or something? 

The amount of money being proposed?  The bill is designed, properly or improperly, to lower health care costs.  And lowering costs is a good goal.  Last year, the only thing government spent more money on than health care, was national defense.  And that, by only about four percent, total.

Forcing people to get health insurance might be an unwieldy imposition. And there may not be enough in this bill, despite many claims to the contrary, to cut costs of these same insurance companies:  companies whom the government is now forcibly throwing extra business to.  But could it be that this person has heard so much generic, usually misleading, and often even venomous rhetoric against it for over half a year, that he has come to hate it without even really knowing why?

Rudy Giuiliani, in a Separate Reality, and Not an Expert on Terrorism

January 8, 2010.  Rudy Giuliani:

We had no domestic attacks under Bush. We’ve had one under Obama.

We had an attempted attack under Bush, similar to the recent failed Christmas day attempt, by Richard Reid, the infamous "shoe bomber." And we had an attack on September 11, 2001 itself, not long after a President's Daily Brief ominously warned of Bin Laden's intent. That's two, not none.

Prior to September 11, the Bush administration also paid far less attention to the issue than the Clinton administration had, despite repeated warnings of a heightened risk.

But these aren't even the only mistakes Guliani has made on this same issue. In an interview with CNN's Larry King, and roundly criticizing President Obama, Giuliani asserted that not responding with a public statement very quickly, "convinces our enemies that we are not ready."

Ready for what? Ready to condemn terrorism yet again based upon terrorists' calendar, and not our own strategic aims?  Terrorists don't care about our readiness to talk about an attack afterwards. They are concerned with being eradicated.  With being thwarted in their attempts to begin with; with being painted even more unfavorably to the world (such as lowly pathological murderous criminals, rather than as those "engaging in a war," or "enemy combatants"); and with us not making a big deal out of it, just working steadfastly to eradicate them -- which is the last thing they want.

Furthermore, what expertise is this view of Guiliani's based upon? The view that thinks that terrorists attack because they don't want attention drawn to their attacks?

And what kind of thinking is this by Giuliani?  That by making a bigger deal of attacks, in a way that otherwise serves no strategic advantage, this somehow dissuades rather than bolsters exactly what terrorists want to perceive -- that they are having an effect upon the great United States?

Giuliani also erroneously stated in that same interview that Obama took ten days to respond. He also repeated this point over and over (watch it again). This is flagrantly incorrect. Obama took three. Bush took six to respond to the "shoe bomber."  When Larry King pointed this out, the former New York Major and aspiring expert countered with "six is less than ten."

Giuliani also seems to make a big deal out of the fact that the shoe bomber attempt was before September 11, 2001. He makes this assertion (also otherwise incorrect, but that is yet another mistake by Giuliani), as if before September 11 we didn't know anything. Perhaps Giuliani didn't.  But most experts and those who should wish to lead us on these issues now, certainly did (including the outgoing Clinton Administration), and repeatedly warned the Bush Administration about it.

Giuliani's strategy is wrong. He clearly knew almost nothing about the issue back before September 11.  And Guliani clearly knows very little about the issue now. He can't even get the basic facts correct, in order to make his otherwise still highly misguided points.  And he keeps getting invited back onto shows as if he is some kind of expert on the topic.
______________

Anal Knowledge

Famed counter-terrorism expert Anne Coulter apparently shared the following knowledge with viewers of one of the most popular "news" shows on Cable in America:

It was spread throughout the diaper. Unless the bomb is inserted under the foreskin, and by the way, I don’t see a clear angle on the anus. That’s a pretty easy hiding place for this.

Where did Anne Coulter receive her training?

Eminent blogger "TBogg," fairly, or unfairly, on the situation:

Before they offshored her job/schtick to the vaguely foreign-looking and obviously discount-binned Michelle Malkin, supposed serious political shouty teevee shows used to book bile-filled exoskeletal “human” Ann Coulter to come on their shows and say very stupid things and lie and look terribly aggrieved because Americans JUST DON’T GET IT and so we’re all gonna end up being harem slaves or something. But, just like herpes, Ann Coulter is back.

And, as he points out, sharing her knowledge with America. Which,clearly, is better off for having it. Otherwise, we might have made scanners without clear angles on the anus.

Japanese Diplomacy on Whaling Issues

Which boat would you rather be on?



What might have prompted this? Apparently, it's an ongoing battle between Japense Whalers, and those trying to stop them.

Tiger Jokes, and a Fox Story

...
Somewhat pilfered from here:

Q: Who's the only person who can beat Tiger with a golf club?
A: His Wife.

Q: What was Tiger's shortest drive since an errant tee shot at the US Open?
A: When he pulled out of his driveway early on a friday morning last month right after his wife found out about his shenanigans.

Q: What's' the only time Tiger has ever failed to drive 300 yards?

Q: Why did Tiger crash into both a tree and a fire hydrant?
A: He couldn’t decide between a wood and an iron

Q: Why did Gillette drop his advertising contract?
A: Tiger admitted that car crash was the closest shave he'd ever had.

Q: What was Tiger Woods doing out at 2.30 in the morning?
A: He’d gone clubbing

Q: What’s the difference between a car and a golf ball?
A: Tiger can drive a ball 400 yards.

Q: What did Tiger shoot with his Automobile collection on that same early Friday morning?
A: A hole in one.

And, last one: What religions should Tiger A) give up, and B) convert to, in order to be able to recover as a person? Don't know? Click here.

Bonus question: What does the word "proselytize" mean?

Someone Get Fox's Brit Hume a Dictionary, or Lie Detector

Perhaps not much better textbook illustration of proselytizing could be had than the following statement:

The Tiger Woods that emerges, once the news value dies out of this scandal, the extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, rests on his faith. He's said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, "Tiger, turn your faith, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.

What was Brit Hume doing here?

He was trying to convert someone to his own religion. Definition number one of proselytizing.

He was trying to convert someone from one religion to another. Definition number 1Ae of proselytizing.

He was trying to spread the gospel, make converts, or bring someone into the fold. Definition 1B of proselytizing.

He was trying to convert someone from a different doctrine, cause or faith to another. Definition number two of proselytizing.

He was trying to espouse his own doctrine.Definition number three of proselytizing.

That pretty much covers all the bases.

So what did Brit Hume have to say about it?

He said he wasn't proselytizing. And this is not a blog you are reading. It is a Martian alien space ray death star morphed into your screen to make it look like a blog.Which would be true, if you were suddenly a character in a really bad sci fi movie looking at a computer screen posing Martian alien space ray death star.

And the fact that Hume was not proselytizing, might also be true, in that same bad movie. Or maybe just on Fox.

Religious Preachers and Converters - a Fox and Tiger Story

Prominent Fox Anchor Brit Hume, on Tiger Woods:

Tiger will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person is another story.

Yes, these are the things our media should be talking about.

Can Tiger recover as a person.

But wait, there is more.  Brit Hume on his alleged news channel offers Tiger some advice on how to recover as a person:

The Tiger Woods that emerges, once the news value dies out of this scandal, the extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, rests on his faith. He's said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, "Tiger, turn your faith, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

A Fox anchor publicly preaching the gospel, and using the weight of his considerable news organization to do it, of converting one's religion, so he can be a GREAT example to the world:




Here's' the sermon that might well accompany Mr. Wood's repentance and transformation,  in the church of the Holy Fox.