Howling Dog Graphic
Point. Click. Search.

Contents: Archives:

Search this weblog
Search WWW
Howler Graphic
by Bob Somerby
E-mail This Page
Socrates Reads Graphic
A companion site.

Site maintained by Allegro Web Communications, comments to Marc.

Howler Banner Graphic
Caveat lector

LURID TALES OF BOXCAR WILLIE! On what meat doth David Brooks feed? Readers were eager to tell us:


ALL THE WAY WITH D_K: Doggone it! We hadn’t made our regular rounds this week, so we didn’t know that Dan Kennedy had already linked to that “human hunt” post—the same one we discussed yesterday (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 1/7/04). On Tuesday, Dan made the same points we made one day later; for example, he noted that though David Brooks decried a disturbing attack on neoconservatives, the post to which Brooks seems to refer also slimed William J. Clinton. To read Dan’s treatment of Brooks’ repellent nonsense, just visit his Boston Phoenix site (we normally drop in every day). For ourselves, we offer another treatment of the Brooks column—a column which reveals so much about the deeply dysfunctional world of America’s inexcusable “press corps.”

BOXCAR WILLIE, NEOCONSERVATIVE: Does David Brooks still have a job? How about trembling editor Gail Collins? A few of you have written to say that we’ve been too tough on Collins in this mess—too tough on her role in the publications of Brooks’ repellent column. But liberals and centrists need to grasp the role that is played by people like Collins. David Brooks doesn’t publish himself—just as Ann Coulter didn’t write the clowning Times review which praised her meticulous research (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/22/02). It was a cowering, overpaid “good guy” editor who brought Brooks’ political porn to your porch. In a rational world, David Brooks would be gone. And Gail Collins would be out the door with him.

And Brooks wasn’t just peddling political porn; the sad little fellow seems to dote on thigh-rubbing porn pure and simple. Readers have written to fill us in on the odd world Brooks’ column exploited:

E-MAIL: I [do a type of academic work which is] based on contemporary political conspiracy theories. As such, I’ve researched a LOT of conspiracies and I’m very familiar with Cathy O’Brien who posted the story on Indymedia that you referenced…Her primary occupation for the last few years has been to write books and go around on the lecture circuit—yes, there’s a conspiracy theory lecture circuit—talking about her “experiences” with Cheney and other politicians. These “experiences” are extremely real to her and she has a legion of devoted fans who believe her and every word that she says.
Brooks, of course, hoped you’d think that this was part of the “anti-Semitic” attack on neoconservatives which has him so deeply, deeply troubled. Another e-mail helps us see how thoroughly Brooks deceived the Times’ readers:
E-MAIL: In regards to the now infamous David Brooks column from the Times, I must confess I was not as confused as many people were as to the reference to Cheney’s “Human Hunting” expeditions because I knew exactly what he was speaking of. I have an (admittedly strange) hobby of collecting “weird tales” as it were, called psychoceramics in some circles, which loosely translated means “the study of crackpots.” And being such an enthusiast, I can tell you, beyond all doubt, Cathy O’Brien (the individual who “remembered” the Cheney human hunting) is a prime example.

I was shocked and delighted to find a copy of the book mentioned in the links you provided in your 1/7/04 update ( in our local library. Unfortunately, I could not finish the book itself because it revels in such a disgusting, hallucinatory sadism that even I couldn’t stomach it for long.

Long story short, Cathy (a “she”, not a “he” as reported in your update) has been groomed since she was born to be a CIA sex-slave. She entered the apparently thriving kiddie bestiality porn business with the help of her father and Gerald Ford (yes, that Gerald Ford) who was somehow able to balance his love of bestiality with his love of politics. After a long tale about how she “escaped” her state fair ventriloquist handler, she details the countless rapes and beatings administered to her from such luminaries as Bob Hope (several times), Ronald Reagan, the senior George Bush (who turned into an alien lizard man in front of her), Boxcar Willie (county singer and drug runner/white slavery operation owner) and, yes, Bill Clinton. In fact (and somewhat unsuprisingly) she goes into a lot of detail about Hillary Clinton’s delight in mutilating Cathy’s genitals, while her husband snorted vast quantities of coke in a meeting next door. This story is recounted in a chapter called “Clinton Coke Lines” which is still available on the Trance Formation website.

And sure enough, our sources checked out! To read the chapter called “Clinton Coke Lines,” you know what to do. Just click here.

Needless to say, none of this craziness has anything to do with anti-Semitic attacks on conservatives. But it has a great deal to do with David Brooks—and with Gail Collins. Let’s review what occurred in this case.

First, at a time of great international peril, David Brooks enjoys wasting his time reading pornography about Boxcar Willie (one of our foremost Jewish neocons). He then likes to pretend that this brain-damaged mess has something to do with liberal anti-Semitism. (To state the obvious, Brooks’ pornographic imagination is every bit the match of Young’s.) So he dutifully typed a fake, phony tale, and slickly handed it off to Collins. Collins—trembling, inept, too fearful too act—rushed Brooks’ “human hunt” lie into print. And she let Brooks present this as part of a larger piece of political porn—his sweeping, utterly ludicrous claim that those who dare to criticize Bush are really just raving anti-Semites. On Monday, the New York Times truly hit a new low. Without Collins, there was no operation.

But no matter! This is the standard which now exists in what we laughingly call a “press corps.” Cowards like Collins hide behind desks, afraid to confront the porn of the right. And why does Brooks degrade himself so? Perhaps the porn-loving pundit will answer that question in his next thrilling installment.

AND ALONG CAME OKRENT: Then Times “public editor” Daniel Okrent stepped in. (Remember: If these people didn’t exist, you could never invent them.) According to Media Whores Online, a Times reader fired an e-mail to Okrent, complaining that Brooks’ astounding column “eagerly slimes anyone who opposes George W. Bush as an ‘anti-Semite.’” Incredibly, here’s the text of Okrent’s response:

OKRENT: As a columnist, Mr. Brooks is entitled to his opinions, as readers are entitled to disagree with them. In this specific case, he quite clearly was using this writerly device to indicate his belief that critics of neo-conservatives think all neo-conservatives are Jewish. Thank you for your comments.
Good God! According to Okrent, Brooks was just using a “writerly device” to express a “belief”—the belief that “critics of neo-conservatives think all neo-conservatives are Jewish.” The fact that no sane person could hold this “belief” didn’t stop Okrent from typing his point.

Who in the world could possibly think that “critics of neo-conservatives think all neo-conservatives are Jewish?” And who in the world could possibly think that that was what the Brooks column said? Easy! “Journalists” at the New York Times get to think such impossible thoughts. Meanwhile, they fill their paper with pure, prime porn—with dissembling references to human sex hunts. And they baldly lie in your faces, claiming that Cathy O'Brien’s ranting about Boxcar Willie were part of an anti-Semitic attack on conservatives. When Collins and Okrent hide behind desks to avoid confronting what’s occurred in their midst, do you really think we’re being too hard when we say this whole gang should be fired?

WINNEBAGO WILLIAMS: If they didn’t exist, you couldn’t invent them. Here’s the opening to Walter Williams’ ludicrous column in today’s Washington Times:

WILLIAMS: Literally hundreds of readers informed me that in last week’s column, “Some Things I Wonder About,” my reference to a Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City—who set his 32-foot Winnebago on cruise control, left the driver’s seat to brew a cup of coffee, crashed, then sued Winnebago for not having a warning against the dangers of doing so and received a jury award of $1,750,000 plus a new motor home—was an urban legend and as such totally false.

My having fallen for this “urban legend” points to more due diligence to fact-checking [sic]. Without making any excuses whatsoever for my lapse in due diligence, let’s look at it.

Thirty, 40 or 50 years ago, no one in their right mind would have believed the Merv Grazinski urban legend possible, but not so today. Personal responsibility has taken a back seat in our increasingly immoral and litigious society. Consider some actual lawsuits researched at

Laughable, isn’t it? After failing to confirm this absurd “urban legend,” Williams keeps complaining about the way “personal responsibility has taken a back seat in our immoral society.” And no, he’s not citing himself.

Williams says that “no one in his right mind” would have believed this story in 1960. But in fact, no sane person would believe it today! (Duh! That’s why hundreds of people wrote him.) Despite this, Williams typed the tale without checking it out, and “editors” published his ludicrous column in papers all across the country. Meanwhile, readers can have more fun with this piece, noting how little Williams’ “actual lawsuits” have to do with the legend he swallowed. For a taste of Williams’ brilliance, here’s his first “actual lawsuit:”

WILLIAMS: The wife of a hockey fan who crashed his car after drinking too much at a Minnesota Wild game has sued the team, saying her husband who was paralyzed in the Feb. 8, 2002, auto crash shouldn’t have been served so much alcohol.
In this, as in several of Williams’ examples, a citizen is said to have brought a complaint. But duh! Williams doesn’t even allege that the complaint was successful in court. “None of these cases…differ in principle from the Merv Grazinski urban legend,” he types.

So let’s see. Brooks is allowed to hold the “belief” that “critics of neo-conservatives think all neo-conservatives are Jewish.” And Williams is allowed to type the claim that Merv Grazinski crashed his Winnebago from its living room area, then was paid major bucks for his trouble. Meanwhile, the New York Times prints an ugly column, peddling lies about crackpot pornography. If such lunacies didn’t exist, could you ever have dreamed them up? Brooks, Collins, Okrent, Williams: On what meat do these pod people feed? And what must rational people—of the left, right and center—do to remove them from influence?

By the way: Yes, it’s true. Walter Williams is a college professor.