tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post7432124989788733448..comments2024-03-27T18:00:02.032-04:00Comments on Sardonicky: Brooks Whigs OutKaren Garciahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15612731479365562803noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-55669163431218983112014-02-02T17:40:49.494-05:002014-02-02T17:40:49.494-05:00@annenigma and @Jay--
When Pollack speaks of the ...@annenigma and @Jay--<br /><br />When Pollack speaks of the <i> " accumulation </i> [of property] <i> at home..." </i> just <i> who </i> are the "accumulators" whom he seems to be criticizing.<br /><br />All of us? Or just the accumulators of massive property?Zeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-18875362251454869882014-02-01T17:03:51.371-05:002014-02-01T17:03:51.371-05:00FYI, I just wanted to point out that the great web...FYI, I just wanted to point out that the great website listed on Karen's blogroll, Popular Resistance (popularresistance.org) is actually the new renamed website for the original Occupy Washington DC protest organized by activists Kevin Zeese, JD and Margaret Flowers, MD (the one that got pre-empted and morphed into Occupy WallStreet/U.S. Day of Rage.) <br /><br />Their website has a great team of contributors. It is well worth reading on a regular basis - if you can tear yourselves away from David Brooks! <br /><br />Thanks to Karen for having it listed. I wouldn't have known about it otherwise.annenigmanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-31596718893405551622014-02-01T15:57:58.859-05:002014-02-01T15:57:58.859-05:00@annenigma
h/t for that pointer to Norman Pollack’...@annenigma<br />h/t for that pointer to Norman Pollack’s ruminations on the SOTU.<br /><br />“…. Liberalism looks good, in seeking to break down encrusted feudal institutions, but when faced by a viable and unafraid Left, its centrism—always the primordial nature of property—strikes out viper-like against radicalism in defense of capitalism.<br /><br />“Thus, Obama’s State of the Union Address: Hunt as one will, not an inch of concession on administration policy, and instead the word “business,” repeated ad nauseam, points up the harmonization of property and the state, capitalism and government, a synthesis which provides the rationale for accumulation at home, trade partnerships, regional alliances, and military expansion abroad.<br /><br />“If I were a political scientist I would elevate Obama’s historical stature for [unconsciously] revealing the guts of liberalism in the last six decades .... Obama has fleshed out liberalism’s ersatz character, the public-relations, [and] doubletalk unctuousness ….”<br />http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/31/obamas-state-of-the-union-address/<br /><br />Brooks and Obama are brothers. <br /><br />Habits are hard to change – tell me about it. But given the blogroll (topside), I find we have less and less reason to turn first, or even last, to the opinion pages of the Times.Jay–Ottawahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10360356126450612113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-70953596040973526542014-02-01T12:43:26.168-05:002014-02-01T12:43:26.168-05:00I would find Brooks a must-miss too, were it not f...I would find Brooks a must-miss too, were it not for his outsized influence on the Obama Industry. Click the link to the "New York" article in the first sentence and read all about the bromance between the hacks. The fact that David Axelrod praises Brooks as one of the leading American public intellectuals really helps explain the incredible over-estimation of Obama's own intellect within his own clique of sycophants. Brooks and Barry: two neoliberal peas in a pod. Brooks poses as a Republican and Obama poses as a Democrat to give free market ideology that sexy bipartisan thrill.<br /><br />I agree about the difference between Times commenting in news articles and op-eds. Former more radical/issues oriented and latter pretty much aligned on party loyalties and personalities. One reason that I usually skip Collins and Blow is that their topics are often restricted to the business model of MSNBC, i.e. shooting GOP fish in a barrel. <br /><br />Will, thanks for the video. I sent it to my son, an amateur competitive mountain biker who isn't getting much biking in during this horrendous Northeast winter.Karen Garciahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15612731479365562803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-46328836957192679452014-02-01T12:12:13.486-05:002014-02-01T12:12:13.486-05:00Personally, I've grown bored with Brooks and A...Personally, I've grown bored with Brooks and ALL the other opinion writers at the NYT on both ends of the political spectrum. I don't read them nor do I even read the comments to those opinion pieces unless they are specifically mentioned here at Sardonicky. I'm always pleased when Karen prints her comment here for that reason. There's simply too little time, too many other superior sources of news and opinion, and far more penetrating analyses elsewhere. <br /><br />Actually, the comments to NEWS pieces in the NYT do a far better job of critiquing than the usual Comment Club who dominate the Opinion section. For some reason the 'trusted' CC don't usually comment in the News section. Maybe they can't get a quick jump to the top of the pack to get the most Recommends because their email alerts are only for Opinions. <br /><br />That's actually a relief. We get to read other people's comments without having to scroll past the Comment Club first. Also we hear from those who don't bother with the Opinion section, like Norman Pollack who contributes pieces to Counterpunch. Here's his latest piece in Counterpunch critiquing the President's SOTU address:<br /><br />http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/31/obamas-state-of-the-union-address/<br /><br />***If Karen had her own column in the Opinion section of NYT, I'd be there in a flash!***annenigmanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-53144082595896199932014-02-01T11:52:29.005-05:002014-02-01T11:52:29.005-05:00OK, so I didn't read Brooks either. Big shocke...OK, so I didn't read Brooks either. Big shocker, huh? (Love the graphic by Kat Garcia, though! Always enjoy her work.) Anyhoo, it's random video time. Here's a guy biking down a mountain with his border collie leading the way. She is soooooo fast! I could watch her run forever:<br /><br />http://foxwoodfilms.com/?p=258<br />Willnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-3282975871551141922014-02-01T11:03:02.624-05:002014-02-01T11:03:02.624-05:00@Jay-Ottawa, "You are what you read." I...@Jay-Ottawa, "You are what you read." I like that. I don't read David Brooks, just the comments. I have a book from Verso/Counterblasts titled "The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Freidman at Work" by Belen Fernandez. I wish someone would publish the same thing regarding David Brook! I would purchase my own copy.ste-vonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-10719912296271544732014-02-01T08:47:02.094-05:002014-02-01T08:47:02.094-05:00Enough of reading David Brooks. Not only is it a ...Enough of reading David Brooks. Not only is it a waste of time, it rots the mind. You are what you read.<br /><br />So here’s a chaser to Brooks. Read the following and, I promise, you’ll walk away refreshed:<br />http://nader.org/2014/01/16/needed-three-obama-speeches-people/Jay–Ottawahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10360356126450612113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-47737127986101406512014-02-01T06:41:46.854-05:002014-02-01T06:41:46.854-05:00Yes. that column was particularly gag worthy.
This...Yes. that column was particularly gag worthy.<br />This is from <i>Dissent</i>. It's about big philanthropy. It almost could have been written as a direct response to Brooks.<br />Meanwhile, the public needs more critical, in-depth information. The mainstream media are, for the most part, failing miserably in their watchdog duties. They give big philanthropy excessive deference and little scrutiny. Public television and radio live on big philanthropy’s largess. Collaborative programming with mega-foundations has undermined the credibility of major for-profit news organizations as well as public media, especially on health and education issues.<br /><br />Early twentieth-century skeptics were rightly suspicious of plutocrats deciding how to improve the human condition and then paying to translate their notions into public policy. Now it’s time for a new progressive era—complete with muckrakers and trust-busters to cast a critical eye on big philanthropy.Katnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-13207481592915795702014-01-31T18:29:06.180-05:002014-01-31T18:29:06.180-05:00Karen, Brooks? Don't you gag?Karen, Brooks? Don't you gag?James F Traynornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-30103764230124988792014-01-31T18:03:53.068-05:002014-01-31T18:03:53.068-05:00Yes, indeed, Karen. Just what we don't n...Yes, indeed, Karen. <i> Just </i> what we <i> don't </i> need.<br /><br />Another collection of <i>“mayors, business leaders, legislators, activists and donors [organized] into permanent alliances and institutions that will formulate, lobby for, fund and promote opportunity and social mobility agendas for decades to come.” </i> <br /><br />In other words, yet more lobbyists and money coming to D.C. to purchase any of our Federal legislators who are not—as yet—as thoroughly bought-off as they would like to be.<br /><br />And I just don't see any of our über-rich “donors” clamoring to <i> “fund and promote opportunity and social agendas” </i> just because Obama asks them to. Yes, there <i> are </i> philanthropists among them, but mostly they seem to be enjoying huge trophy homes, cars, yachts and other personal indulgences—and buying politicians—rather than doing anything really constructive with their enormous wealth.<br /><br />If they were actually doing anything they could really be proud of with some of their spare change, perhaps they wouldn't feel so <i> defensive </i> just because someone dared to ask them if they <i> were </i> doing so. <br /><br />http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/why-do-the-super-rich-keep-comparing-obama-to-hitler/283404/<br /><br />What hogwash.Zeenoreply@blogger.com