Monday, April 11

That's It? Really?

BEFORE we begin, I'd just like to ask Tiger Woods whether yesterday's applause from a collection of hypocrites felt any better than their scorn did last year.

Now, among the personal consequences of the Times porous firewall--I'm a natural husbander, and I've opened a mere three articles so far, Brooks' All Hail Paul Ryan piece last week, Douthat and Krugman this morning--is an increased familiarity with the Washington Post, something I don't wish on anyone. At least there's no math involved. Last week this included Dana Milbank finding renewed hope for mankind in the slow-motion firing of Glenn Beck, an attitude which goes beyond The Glass is Half Full optimism and A Little Arsenic Never Hurt Anyone capitalist collusion all the way to Sure It Smells Like Pig Shit, But That's The Mark Of A Great Burgundy clinical pathology territory. The entire advance of digital technology, of the American ideal of universal education, nay, the whole of Western Civilization herself is negated when someone can type this sentence and not follow it by slashing his own throat, at least as a warning to others:
Fox deserves credit for finally putting an end to this.

See, I'm not sure how a functional adult can miss the Tunguska Explosion of stupidity that detonates about 20% of the way into that sentence. For someone who's paid to cover our politics, and who has worked as a multi-media clown himself, Milbank simply has to understand that Beck was a Roger Ailes put-up job, and that unfettered Protocols of the Elders of Zion dementia schtick has become a public liability when the Republican Presidential campaign is slated to begin any month now. Falling ratings? He's still a comparative powerhouse. Advertiser pressures? That's been going on ever since he said, "But this Obama is a colored fella!" out where sane, decent people--or at least Today Show viewers--could hear him. Congratulating FOX for cutting Beck loose is like congratulating the fast food industry for tackling the obesity problem.

Last week the President of the United States, who's been called "Socialist" by the opposition party from the moment he defeated Hillary for 'em, basically agreed with the assessment. Of course we're well beyond questioning his commitment to anything other than a successful 2012 product roll-out, but if he's serious about both that and budget cutting I'd like to know what he didn't go ahead and indicate a willingness to sign a budget bill provided that it cut the $100 billion or whatever it was that Republicans promised in the first place. I know, he's a great admirer of Ronald Reagan, and so believes that if the piano falls on people's heads in sections it won't hurt as much, or they won't be able to figure out where it came from.

Because if you're a decent human being you know what's wrong with draconian cuts in social services, and if you're a reasonable one you know what this deficit "crisis" is composed of. There is no legitimate argument that Tax Cuts=Jobs Creation anymore, and even if there were, Jobs at the expense of Health and Well-Being, Education, and Human Compassion is not exactly a winning argument.

And if you've been paying attention then you realize that the number of roofs required to fall on America's collective skull sufficient to effect some awareness of Gravity is something north of "one". If this is the way it's to be, let's get going. Starvation isn't much improved by slowing it down.


ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said... increased familiarity with the Washington Post, something I don't wish on anyone.

I thought I'd warned you...

Anonymous said...

Not sure if "porous" refers to the Times paywall allotment of articles or to its actual porousness. In case you haven't figured out how to get around it, here's how:

Once you exceed your article limit, you'll see URLs in your address bar that have this character group in the center:


Delete everything to the right of the question mark and hit "enter"

Anonymous said...

Sorry, everything including the question mark.

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

I would rather see a way to delete David Brooks from public consciousness than a method of reading his columns for free (aka more than they're worth).

Anonymous said...

I delete Brooks from my personal consciousness by never reading them.

I do like the Science section.