Subscribe via RSS Feed

And Don’t Kid Yourself, Financial Stability Has Nothing to Do With Health or Marital Stability

[ 11 ] November 1, 2011 |

Shorter Bobo: “‘Stagnant social mobility’ and the concentration of wealth within a self-perpetuating plutocracy are completely separate problems.  And people without college degrees would magically become more prosperous if they had sex in ways I considered appropriate.”

…poor Bobo has his argument assessed by people who know what they’re talking about.

Share with Sociable

Comments (11)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

    • DrDick says:

      Saw that this morning. A thing of beauty it is.

      As far as what it takes to make it to the 1%, the single best indicator of your future wealth and status is that of your parents. Chose them well.

  1. c u n d gulag says:

    Brooks is really trying waaaaaaay too hard nowadays.

    It looks like his handlers got to him after this column berating the Republican Party a few months ago.

    And I nominate this sentence for “The Dumbest Fucking Thing I’ve Read All Year In The NY Times,” and believe me, there’s some stiff competition for that in 2011:

    “That’s because the protesters and media people who cover them tend to live in or near the big cities, where the top 1 percent is so evident.”

    Really?
    You noticed!

    Where do you want protesters to go and do?
    Occupy a fence post on a 10,000 acre ranch in fucking Montana, you dumbass yutz?
    Jesus!

    I’m sure, where ever he may be, William F. Buckley soiled himself laughing at that sentence.

    Smarter Conservative pundits, please?!?!

    • bgn says:

      If they were smarter, they wouldn’t be pundits. Or conservative.

      • c u n d gulag says:

        Point taken!

      • David Hunt says:

        Actually, I don’t think the thing lacking from conservative pundits is intelligence…at least not on the high end where Brooks lives. I think what is lacking is scruples. I think that most top-end conservative pundits like Brooks are smart enough to realize that a lot of what they write is B.S. and that they deal with it through a combination of (1) willful ignorance, (2) a near total lack of empathy for their politcal/economic/social enemies/lesers, (3) a near total lack of ethics/morality in general.

        Of course the level of intelligence varies among conservative pundits as does that amount that they fall into any of my three categories, but I think that most critiques of these guys arguments simultaneously give these guys not enough intellectual credit and too much moral credit. They know that their job isn’t to be right or promote policies that are good for the county. Their job is to promote policies that are good for the conservative elites.

        • DrDick says:

          Have you ever actually read a Brooks column? There is no functioning sentience there.

          • Njorl says:

            The single most important aspect of the conservative propaganda machine is the assault on the idea that things can be known and proved to ordinary people.

            Brooks is doing his job well. Yes, he appears idiotic under careful scrutiny, but his message is that careful scrutiny is a waste of time for ordinary people. He wants people to go along to get along, to follow the Very Serious People, to accept “both sides do it so don’t worry” and so on.

            He’s not a debater, he’s an intellectual laziness instructer. He’s managed to keep a job at the NY Times while engaging in a constant assault on the process of rational thought. I don’t know that an idiot could manage that.

  2. wiley says:

    I’m not gonna go there, because I suspect that trusting the shorter is a good idea. Haven’t had my coffee yet and am too vulnerable for that much stupid.

  3. And people without college degrees would magically become more prosperous if they had sex in ways I considered appropriate.

    Sigh.

    All right, Mr. Brooks, exactly what is it you’re into, and how much money are we talking about here?

  4. Jon Custer says:

    For some reason I find it much hard to take Brooks seriously since I learned that “Bobo” is a commonly-used term in French (more or less synonymous with “Yuppie”). As opposed to before, when I couldn’t take him seriously because of the ludicrous crap he was always writing.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.