David Brooks's latest article on the election is so laced with superiority and condescension it's hard to read, especially since he himself is representative of the decline he goes on about but the Times is culpable as well. Why the hell do they continue to employ him?
They must have a lower bar for conservatives. Most of their modestly lefty writers are uninspiring but at least the people make sense. I guess conservatives continue to be coddled because, well, lefties are nice and inclusive and more broad-minded and accepting.
And, to the extent that they can, the righties ensure that those who disagree with them pay any price they can exact. They are mean and damn the rules and they will bestow the pariah brand of persecution on anyone. Hillary is in another universe in relation to Trump.
It's "false equivalency" to even compare them. Where the fuck do you stand, David? He doesn't "stand" anywhere because he would have to admit to decades of his own arrogance and documented poor judgment, including his implication in the rise of Herr Donald.
Though it's still not saying much, whatever he might do at this point since we're so deep in the crap he helped create, which I will not allow him to forget, not that anyone pays any attention to me. They would, however, if I was employed by the Times. Hint, hint...
No comments:
Post a Comment