But what does Matt Taibbi really think of David Brooks?
Taibbi loses it over an exchange between NYT columnists David Brooks and Gail Collins, in which Brooks asserts (a) that the privileged Dukies outworked Butler and deserved to win, and (b) that for the first time in human history the rich are working harder than the poor (you can see logical progression):
Then again, maybe I’m looking at this from the wrong perspective. Would I rather clean army latrines with my tongue, or would I rather do what Brooks does for a living, working as a professional groveler and flatterer who three times a week has to come up with new ways to elucidate for his rich readers how cosmically just their lifestyles are? If sucking up to upper-crust yabos was my actual job and I had to do it to keep the electricity on in my house, then yes, I might look at that as work.
But it strikes me that David Brooks actually enjoys his chosen profession. In fact, he strikes me as the kind of person who even in his spare time would pay a Leona Helmsley lookalike a thousand dollars to take a shit on his back. And here he is saying that the reason the poor and the middle classes are struggling is because they don’t work hard enough. Is this guy the best, or what? Does it get any better than this?
In acting, this is called "chewing the scenery." In writing, I dunno - not ready for prime time?