WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7, 2004
VISIT HIS INCOMPARABLE ARCHIVES: We chose it as our Spin of the Year: If you disagree with President Bush, that means that youre gripped by irrational anger. Or: If you disagree with President Bush, that means that youre just a Bush-hater. Now we get to add a new, advanced form: If you disagree with President Bush, that means that youre anti-semitic! Of course, David Brooks repellent class has played games like this through the annals of time. What a shame that we live in an age when the Gail Collinses push their porn into print.
Meanwhile, visit Josh Marshalls incomparable archives! We strongly suggest that you read Marshalls take on David Brooks repellent columnand on the neatly scripted, forerunner column penned by scripted typist Joel Mowbray. Of course, Brooks and Mowbray are just typing the scripts theyve been handed by their ownersbut theyre eager to make a Big Joke of your discourse. Meanwhile, Collins hides behind her deskand she puts Brooks cant into print.
Be sure to read the Marshall postand be sure to read Mowbrays companion confection. In our view, Brooks column is so astounding that it deserves to be reviewed in detail. To what did Brooks dark piece refer? Incomparably, weve examined that question. Did you think you knew how far Brooks had fallen? Examine a hunter of men.
A HUNTER OF MEN: Over at the Weekly Standard, David Brooks and his colleagues were deeply troubled. Indeed, the sensitive fellows had gotten the sense that the whole world was becoming unhinged from reality (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 1/6/04). As Brooks and his worried companions looked on, all these articles began appearing about how a bunch of neoconservatives at the magazine had taken over U.S. foreign policy. And all these articles, of course, were quite anti-semitic! Shivering in revulsion and fear, Brooks describes what his claque saw:
BROOKS: Theories about the tightly knit neocon cabal came in waves. One day you read that neocons were pushing plans to finish off Iraq and move into Syria. Web sites appeared detailing neocon conspiracies; my favorite described a neocon outing organized by Dick Cheney to hunt for humans. The Asian press had the most lurid stories; the European press the most thorough. Every day, it seemed, Le Monde or some deep-thinking German paper would have an expose on the neocon cabal, complete with charts connecting all the conspirators.Anyhoo, Brooks and his friends soon came to see that, when people criticized neoconservatives, they were really just hunting down Jews! So he wrote a piece in yesterdays Times in which he revealed the whole plot. Of course, as men of his class are wont to do, Brooks knew he mustnt name the anti-semites in question. Like other great tail-gunners of the past, Brooks has a long list of names in his pocket. And he doesnt plan to reveal who they are.
Well sir, over here at THE DAILY HOWLER, we couldnt help wondering who Brooks had in mind. And yes, we were especially curious about that neocon hunt for humans which Cheney allegedly ran. (For purposes of Brooks slimy work, Dick Cheney is honorarily Jewish.) Of course, we chuckled to see Brooks citing web sites. As everyone except Gail Collins must know, you can find anything on the worlds web sites; any grievance you wish to nurse can be profitably nursed in this manner. Are these sites worth discussing in the New York Times? To state the obvious, no, they are not.
But who in the world had dared to suggest that Cheney had gone on a hunt for humans? One reader offered a plausible thought; perhaps this had been a satiric take on the VPs recent pheasant hunt outside Pittsburgh. Of course, theres no way to know if that is true, since Brooks doesnt say what hes talking about. But we craftily ran a Google search, hoping to see what had him so troubled. And yes, our own human hunt was rewarded. A recent post on an Oregon site is almost surely what has D-Brooks frazzled. What sort of post is now so important that the New York Times will flog it this way? Readers, David Brooks has time on his hands. You know what to do; just click here.
The post in question is quite peculiar, of that there can be little doubt. Is the post supposed to be weird fiction? Is it meant to be taken as autobiography? Here at THE HOWLER, we really cant say. But the tale of Cheneys human hunt ishow shall we put it?extremely irregular. So youll know, here is the sort of first-person narrative on which David Brooks now wastes your time:
WEB SITE: My fathers sixth grade education had earned him a job as a worm digger for local sport fisherman. By the time I was six years old, however, his pornographic exploitation of my older brother Bill and me had provided enough income to move us into a bigger house nestled in the Michigan sand dunes. My father was right at home there. The tourists and drug dealers who littered the eastern shore of Lake Michigan further supplemented his income by paying for perverse sex with us children. My father also became involved in illicit drug sales.As the narrative continues, our hero is sold into sexual bondage to a bunch of Big Major Republicans. Soon, hes carted off to Wyoming, where he encounters Dick Cheney. Well spare you the details of what happens next, although theyre available at the link we have posted. But the lurid tale has a grabber headline. Cheney has a history of playing HUNT THE HUMAN in Wyoming, the banner headline memorably says. Well assume that this is the hunt for humans which has recently rocked Brooks world. Well assume that this is the tale receiving critique in paragraph 2 of a Times op-ed column.
But just for the record, can we make one more point? Before the tale of the human hunt ends, another honorary Jew has appeared. David Brooks didnt tell you, of course, because David Brooks is faking you blue. But what other neocon Jew runs this hunt? Mental illness can be quite inclusive. Here is another sub-headline:
SUB-HEADLINE: Offtut, Mt. Shasta NWO compound, Bush, Cheney, Clinton, human huntingThats right, readers! Honorary neocon William J. Clinton is also a part of this hunt! But William J. Clinton isnt a neocon, and William J. Clinton isnt a Jew. Therefore, as Brooks deplores the anti-semitism which now so deeply afflicts the known world, he knows he must edit out Clinton. (Yes, we knowits possible that Brooks was wasting your time with some other pointless web site offering.)
Readers, can we make a note about mental illness? Oddball tales like this human hunt narrative occur all over the country. Theyre heard every day in corner bars. Theyre sung every night in deserted storefronts. And today, such tales appear on the weband fakers like Brooks will exploit them. Just how does the process work? Over at the RNC, an endless human hunt occurs. Thigh-rubbing demagogues search the web, looking for nonsense with which to distract you. Theyll find a lurid tale about human hunts; theyll find a dumb ad in a web-based ad contest. Then theyll hand their garbage to tools like Brooks, and Brooks will pretend to be troubled. Why didnt Brooks name the web site in question? Isnt the answer to that fairly clear? But try to believe that it really is true: At a time of international peril, corrupted clowns like David Brooks spend their time pimping nonsense like this. Your world is full of life-and-death problemsand Brooks wastes his time on bizarre, disturbed narratives. Do these narratives slime Clinton too? David Brooks knows not to tell you.
May we suggest a productive human huntin which we chase down Collins and Brooks, and drive them away from our discourse?
THE PERFECT SOLUTION! BROOKS WAS JUST KIDDING! In this mornings edition, the Times runs an intriguing mix of letters about Brooks column. In truth, we cant discern how the fourth letter (out of four) relates to the column in question. But the first two letters are surely on-pointalthough the Times deftly starts with a letter defending Brooks right to free expression.
But we couldnt help chuckling at letter 3. A woman writes from Illinoisand she offers the magic excuse:
LETTER: David Brooks jokes about the term neocon, saying that con is short for conservative and neo is short for Jewish (column, Jan. 6). Although I am well aware of a subset of crazies who correlate neoconservatives with Jews because of anti-Semitic feelings, anyone who reads the newspaper can see that there is a powerful group of new conservatives in the present administration.Did anyone on earthexcept this womanthink that David Brooks was joking? Was his column a tribute to Albert Brooks? Surely, the Times received beaucoup letters about this column. Does anyone doubt why this short letter helpfully found its way into print?
ZELLS BELLS: Sorry. Zell Millers laughable book is too amusing to mix with Brooks. Theres a word for the Brooks/Collins column: repellent. Because his column is so instructive, well stick to David Brooks for a while.
MOORE KIDDING: As weve often helpfully noted, Stephen Moores org, The Club for Growth, is often confused with The Hair Club for Men. Understandably, this widespread conflation makes Moore very angry. And alas! In this mornings Post, Howard Kurtz notes that the founders frustration has begun boiling over again:
KURTZ: The harshest ad this week is scheduled to debut today in Iowa as part of a $100,000 buy by the conservative Club for Growth. The group, which previously slammed Dean for promising to repeal the Bush tax cuts, uses ridicule in a couples conversation.Left-wing freak show? What could that mean? Any chance that left-wing freak show is just ClubSpeak meaning gay marriage? Luckily, the clubs hairy spot is meant to be humorous, so none of this matters a lick.