tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post6746287271746308974..comments2024-03-28T06:49:24.930-04:00Comments on International Political Economy at the University of North Carolina: Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Blogosphere?Thomas Oatleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14092437150746625670noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-88828104567593170682009-09-02T16:54:31.952-04:002009-09-02T16:54:31.952-04:00Brad -
Don't be so pissy.
Forgive me if my i...Brad -<br /><br />Don't be so pissy.<br /><br />Forgive me if my impression of your impression of Brooks is colored by your writings on Brooks. The google site search of your blog that I linked to shows numerous calls for Brooks' dismissal, claims that he never writes in good faith (in your comment you claim he does so at least 25% of the time), that he steals his paycheck, cannot add, and is a general menace to society. And that's just on the first page of the search, and only in the titles of the posts. In fact, I can't think of any way in which you've been less critical of Brooks than you have of NR, and I've read your blog every day for 4 years. <br /><br />All of which I'm fine with; I'm no lover of Brooks (or NR), and you may be right that NR has sunk so low that Brooks would represent an improvement. In fact, I never said he wouldn't be. But why not make that case instead of lazily invoking anti-semitism? Why not mention that Brooks fell out with the NR crew because he isn't a Goldwater conservative? Or because he isn't even a social conservative?<br /><br />If you saw something idiotic in that post, well, I've done little but cite your sentiments, link to your posts, and ask that you argue in good faith rather than by insinuation. Which of those do you object to?Kindred Winecoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14330671232391851377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-66812693010002859722009-09-02T16:14:00.661-04:002009-09-02T16:14:00.661-04:00Don't be an idiot.
David Brooks is smart, ar...Don't be an idiot. <br /><br />David Brooks is smart, articulate, has an eye for good prose, and tries at least a quarter of a time to grapple with the dilemmas of conservatism in the twenty-first century, and only spends three-quarters of his time pandering to the prejudices of the base.<br /><br />That's much, much better than National Review's current trajectory. Brooks would be a vast improvement.<br /><br />Well, maybe you cannot help it. But please don't reveal you are an idiot so blatantly...bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04548019979157668776noreply@blogger.com