Monday, April 12, 2004

Does saying Brooks is "full is shit" imply he has an exterior, shit-containing membrane that is not itself made of shit? 

Dawkins writes:

Tom Scocca, the New York Observer's media critic, points out what many of us have known for a while: Brooks is full of shit.

The demand for Mr. Brooks’ rim-shot sociology is as strong as ever. This past Sunday, The New York Times Magazine ran a meditation on sprawl excerpted from his upcoming On Paradise Drive: How We Live Now (And Always Have) in the Future Tense. "[T]here are no people so conformist as those who fault the supposed conformity of the suburbs," Mr. Brooks mused. "They regurgitate the same critiques decade after decade."

Speaking of regurgitating critiques, here’s Mr. Brooks in The Weekly Standard, in 2002: "There is no group in America more conformist than the people who rail against suburbanites for being conformist—they always make the same critiques, decade after decade."

Blicero adds: Brooks, deconstructioniste extraordinaire!


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?