Posted on 01/15/2016 1:44:07 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Brooks' writing on sociology has been criticised for being based on stereotypes and presenting false claims as factual.[57][58] In 2004, Sasha Issenberg, writing for Philadelphia magazine, fact-checked Bobos in Paradise, concluding that many of its comments about middle America were misleading or the exact reverse of the truth.[59] He reported Brooks as insisting that the book was not intended to be factual but to report his impressions of what he believed an area to be like: "He laughed...'[The book was] partially tongue-in-cheek'...I went through some of the other instances where he made declarations that appeared insupportable. He accused me of being 'too pedantic,' of “taking all of this too literally,' of 'taking a joke and distorting it.' 'That's totally unethical', he said." Brooks later said the article made him feel that "I suck...I can’t remember what I said but my mother told me I was extremely stupid.”[60] In 2015, Salon found that Brooks had got 'nearly every detail' wrong about a poll of high-school students.[61]Michael Kinsley argued that Brooks was guilty of "fearless generalizing... Brooks does not let the sociology get in the way of the shtick, and he wields a mean shoehorn when he needs the theory to fit the joke."[62] Writing for Gawker, which has consistently criticised Brooks' work, opinion writer Tom Scocca argued that Brooks' career since 2004 had been marked by supporting political stands based on moral judgements and disdaining those citing evidence or statistical research, noting that "possibly that is because he perceives facts and statistics as an opportunity...to work mischief."[63]
In 2016, James Taranto criticized[64] Brooks' analysis[65] of a U.S. Supreme Court case,[66] writing that "Brooks’s treatment of this case is either deliberately deceptive or recklessly ignorant."[64] Law professor Ann Althouse concurred that Brooks "distorts rather grotesquely" the case in question.[67] Brooks was previously criticized for having "scrambled the actual significance of what the Supreme Court has done", as Lyle Denniston put it.[68]
Law professor Ann Althouse concurred that Brooks "distorts rather grotesquely" the case in question. Brooks was previously criticized for having "scrambled the actual significance of what the Supreme Court has done", as Lyle Denniston put it.
Thank you.
I’d like a bit of “Spartan belligerence” directed at the enemies of civilization.
Score Rubio +1 for this:
^When you talk about immigration. Ted Cruz, you used to say you supported doubling the number of green cards, now you say you’re against it. You used to support 500 percent increase in the number of guest workers, now against it. You used to support legalizing people here illegally. Now against it. You used to say you were in favor of birthright citizenship. Now you are against it. Not just on immigration, you used to support TPA, now you are against it. I saw you on the Senate floor flip your vote on crop insurance because they told you it would help you in Iowa. And last week we saw you flip the vote on Iowa for the same reason.
That is not consistent conservatism. That is political calculation.^
Do you know what thread you are posting in?
No wonder Rubio has you in his clasped greasy palm.
So who’s David Brooks...?
David Brooks should become an immigrant and leave us.
* RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
Brooks is just another liberal media whore doing whatever he can for the cause.
Bump!
My first reaction: “Who the hell is David Brooks?” Just another lefty newspaperman? Excuse me, columnist. Oh, sorry, Journalist! And for the hallowed NYT.
That qualifies him to play Judge, Jury and Pope on Cruz’s virtue. Bring on the Cruz Inquisition! Bishop Brooks says so!
What a bizarre piece. Brooks has a serious adjective addiction, the sure sign of a writer desperate to impress.
I always find it informative and downright stunning when a person who supports secularism presumes to scold the rest of us about what is “Christian”. Now, I put the word Christian in quotes because a lot of what secular people call Christian is really a shadow or a remnant of true Christianity, like the kind found in the text of the Bible.
To the extent there are Christian values in our mainly-secular society, they are far more “Christian themed” than truly Christian.
An example of this can be found on this very forum where we would see people who are living with a member of the opposite sex without being married, and yet they post complaints that same-sex marriage is a violation of Christian values.
But secular people and especially those in the media and in academia are “hell-bent” (as a manner of speaking) to destroy every vestige of Christian values in our society. They do this even though they have not clearly thought out what values they propose to replace them with, except they fully intend those values to be thoroughly Progressive.
“Left-wing journalist accuse those of us who believe in traditional values of being somehow ‘Satanic’. I didn’t know they thought that was a bad thing…”
Ted Cruz
Brooks is actually engaged in “Two Stage Alinskyism”
Stage 1: Define the other side’s rules for them.
Stage 2: Make the other side live by them.
Brooks defining (incorrectly) what it means to be a Christian, then demanding that Cruz live by that definition, is an example.
Now we know why he fits in so “seamlessly” at the NYT.
: )
Yes.
We do.
Yup, Salon and left-wing Wiki trolls posting carloads of lieaganda from other lefty writers ... those are my own lodestars by which to judge the political insufficiencies of liberal writers.
Meanwhile, Brooksie is still a leg-humping Obama trouser-fetishist and all-around wuss.
If you have something other than your ass in your hand then share it.
Like Cruz, he was born in Canada with a US citizen parent.
I used to think somebody who was hated by people all across the political spectrum couldn't be all bad, but David Brooks is convincing me otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.