Piece of crap New York Times says tsunamis hit immoral people

[Proud2BAmurkin]

Can you believe this SHIT...........New York Fucking Times

<snip>

"Nowadays we find these kinds of explanations repugnant. It is repugnant to imply that the people who suffer from natural disasters somehow deserve their fate. And yet for all the callousness of those tales, they did at least put human beings at the center of history.

In those old flood myths, things happened because human beings behaved in certain ways; their morality was tied to their destiny. Stories of a wrathful God implied that at least there was an active God, who had some plan for the human race. At the end of the tribulations there would be salvation."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/01/opinion/01brooks.html?oref=login

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. As Atrios has said:

"Bobo is losing it". And so he is.

[Rockerdem]

2. It sounds like rambling filler

Needed some copy, so they assigned it to the couple of house conservatives on the staff.

[Bouncy Ball]

3. Is this a fucking editorial or what???

What is it, an opinion piece or an editorial? If it's an opinion piece, who the hell wrote that shit?

[Rockerdem]

5. URL contains "opinion"

nt

[phusion]

4. Uhhh..context?

Brooks is talking about the "old flood myths". It's not his personal views...

Comprende?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

6. Nope he always does it. "This is repugnant.......AND YET............"

He says attributing natural disasters to human immorality is better than attributing them to the power of nature.

and the New York Times thinks it's great.

[Bouncy Ball]

11. I can see where you are coming from

because I'm not sure now, having read it all twice, WHY he felt the need to have those paragraphs about floods and natural disasters being a punishment, etc.

It's like when someone says "Um I don't mean to offend you BUT.." and they go on to do it. Like somehow the qualifier makes it ok.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

18. Exactly. He says "choose wrath of god explanation because....

"at least" it blames humans. Huuuh?

[SemperEadem]

35. well, I guess

that makes folks in Florida feel really good about themselves, huh? Next time an F5 tornado rolls through and destroys a small town, we can all feel real snuggly and cozy with the fact that God decimated an immoral enclave of sinners, and did the rest of humanity a huge favor? Puleeze!

Blind me with science!!!!

[Bouncy Ball]

7. I think you didn't read it right

he doesn't say they deserved it. He does go on some kind of weird rampage against nature itself, which makes my satirical post earlier about bush declaring a War on Nature even less satirical.

Of course, Brooks had to get in his digs, didn't he:

The world's generosity has indeed been amazing, but sometimes we use our compassion as a self-enveloping fog to obscure our view of the abyss. Somehow it's wrong to turn this event into a good-news story so we can all feel warm this holiday season. It's wrong to turn it into a story about us, who gave, rather than about them, whose lives were ruined. It's certainly wrong to turn this into yet another petty political spat, as many tried, disgustingly, to do.

This is a moment to feel deeply bad, for the dead and for those of us who have no explanation.

PETTY POLITICAL SPAT? The guy SAT at his RANCH and did NOTHING!!! Hmmm, where I have heard THAT one before? I'm having fucking deja vu!

Oh but all Brooks can do is get MAD at NATURE. Um, yeah. Whatever. A lot of good that'll do ya. Good luck with that Brooks. That should do about how the War on Terror goes.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. David Brooks is a Repuke idiot,

but if you read the whole article it's pretty clear that he wasn't in any way saying those people deserved to die because they were immoral. In the quoted paragraph he was just commenting on historical explanations of natural disasters. Brooks is a dick but he's not a fundie dick.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

13. No, he was saying wrath of god is a better explanation than wrath of

nature. "At least they put the humans in the center of things"

Yeah like when Jerry Fatwell says 911 and AIDS are the wrath of god

[Bouncy Ball]

17. Yeah he did make THAT weird point.

:crazy:

[melnjones]

46. I read it as

it sometimes makes more sense to us and is the easier way to think for those of us who are removed from the disaster, but it's wrong. It gives us an explanation for what makes no sense to us, and sometimes we go looking for those explanations, but he is saying that explanation is WRONG and if the two options are 1) blame the morality of the people affected, and 2)realize that this disaster makes no sense and could have hit us just as easily, the better choice is #2. I also think his comment "at least they put the humans in the center of things" is in regards to society sometimes thinking the world revolves around humans, which some would rather believe because it hides the frightening truth that we're actually pretty powerless and vulnerable, ALL of us.

[melnjones]

9. Ok, so am I just reading it wrong?

To me it sounds like he's saying exactly the opposite, that some people would believe those things and indeed in the past that was common thought, but really such acts of nature are senseless and do not discriminate. Honestly, there really are people in our society who do think tragedy happens to people because of their "sin" or immorality, and it sounds like this guy is totally speaking to those people and disputing that belief.

[Stunster]

21. Jesus himself talked about this

Isn't there a bit in the Gospels where Jesus talks about whether the 18 people who were killed when a tower at Siloam collapsed were worse sinners than others, and says no, that had nothing to do with it?

I haven't got the text to hand, but I know it's in there somewhere.

[hollowdweller]

51. Also in Ecclesiastes it says Sinner or Righteous shit happens

The race is not to the swift, nor bread to the wise, nor favor to men of skill nor battle to the strong, but tame and fate happen to all. Like fish caught in an evil net so their end comes to the sons of men when they least expect it(not exact quotation)

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. I agree

He is not agreeing with those beliefs.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

24. I think Brooks is just

pulling a bunch of disjointed "philosophical" remarks out of his ass, just blathering along without really saying anything at all. I'm guessing the NYT figured it needed a somber, faux-profound puff piece and tapped Brooks to puke one up. But, as usual, he's about as deep as a mud puddle. I really don't quite know what the hell he said, but it wasn't much.

[bpilgrim]

10. what a bizarre Thoreau analogy

"Nature doesn't seem much like a nurse or friend this week, and when Thoreau goes on to celebrate the savage wildness of nature, he sounds, this week, like a boy who has seen a war movie and thinks he has experienced the glory of combat."

:crazy:

Brooks reminds me of a kid who dashes off to his computer to witness on a disastor he's seen on teeVee as if he's lived through it. :puke:

peace

[Bouncy Ball]

12. Yeah I laughed at that part

Like David Brooks has ever sat in a cabin in the woods for any extended period of time. What does he know about nature when he goes from his apartment in Manhattan to the waiting car to his climate-controlled office?

[bpilgrim]

15. he certainly reveals his IGNORANCE trying to sound profound in this tripe

:puke:

peace

[Barney Rocks]

14. It is a true representation of how ancient people

(and even most more modern ones) thought. Even in bibilical times--if a person was blind--they said--who sinned? Was it this man or his father? They thought someone must have done something wrong for the person to suffer blindness. And that the blindness was God's way of retaliation. Remember too--in the bible God destroys all the "bad" people in a flood. This is very common in ancient thought and traditions.

I don't think these beliefs are "evil"--these ancient people did not have modern science--they were people sitting around, trying to figure out how the world worked just based on what they could observe. This was the best they could do....

I don't know that these kinds of beliefs about how the world works are necessarily "freeper" positions--although they are unenlightened which does remind me of freeper thought.

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. No it doesn't

It says this kind of explanation is "repugnant".

[Proud2BAmurkin]

19. "is repugnant...........and YET......"

Brooks is repugnant

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. Whatever

I am not familiar with this guy but I don't find this to be an objectionable piece.

[Ilsa]

20. He says at the end that he has no explanation.

"This is a moment to feel deeply bad, for the dead and for those of us who have no explanation."

I think it was rambling to cover all the possible uses and abuses of this news. i think he was poking fun at the nature lovers when nature is harsh, but I didn't get the sense that he was blaming the victims for their lack of godliness. He was bringing that up as the first political statement, then the other stuff secondarily, etc.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

22. It's how they get their foot in the door with whacked out ideas

he says it's a repugnant idea......"however".....

[bpilgrim]

26. so he want's us to feel sorry for him, too?

:puke:

what a geek!

peace

[FM Arouet666]

27. A veiled attempt

Raising the specter of punishment of the sinner through a great flood, then suggesting that this kind of thinking is in error, is clearly disingenuous. This pilgrim knows that the religious audience will find his analogy to be plausible, and as such, his weak attempt to portray such thinking as repugnant is just a veiled attempt to pursue his true intent. The victims of this horrible flood are being punished by a christian god. And this from the NYT. Sad, truly sad........

[bpilgrim]

28. he seems to attack those who embrace nature for the sake of nature

and who recognize it's interconnectedness with life and us humans ie. the 'dig' on Thoreau

:puke:

peace

[FM Arouet666]

29. A dig on scientists, rationalists and Thoreau.

I find his opening line most curious. To raise a question, only to condemn the thought, seems to be deceptive. That is, if your original intent is to propose that notion in the first place. Some things are better not spoken directly, yet the unspoken message speaks volumes.

[Bouncy Ball]

30. BINGO.

And if that WEREN'T his motive, why mention such a "repugnant" idea at ALL?

[checks-n-balances]

31. Brooks uses this device quite often, almost like he's delivering

a subliminal message. His writing is so muddled, and I wish the man would just go ahead and speak in a more straightforward way, but then his column would be too short.

BTW, isn't he a neocon who also writes for the Weekly Standard?

[FM Arouet666]

32. An age old device of the oppressor

State something controversial, then offer a weak condemnation. Knowing well that your target audience will agree with your original supposition. Brooks is using a very thin literary device to pursue a heinous agenda. Why an icon of American journalism publishes his obvious mendacity is beyond me.

[SemperEadem]

38. Fred Phelps already has

a man led by the nose by Satan himself, but he doesn't even realize it.

[librechik]

33. Brooks--what a clown, juggling all his crazed fantasies

trying to keep them all up in the air at the same time. He seems pretty desperate these days--how will he make it thru 4 more years? (how will we all?)

[slay]

34. Maybe "God" will show up and save us from the fundies!

How much would that piss them off. :)

[Undercover Owl]

36. This is what the guy wants

David Brooks just wants people to pay attention.

Oh, well.
Remember when some people suggested God was punishing Florida? That's not very funny, either.

[babylonsister]

37. Read the article. You are not doing justice to

Brooks or what he wrote. Chill, maybe?

Edit: Just read this thread, and I had no pre-conceived notions about him. When I hear the name Brooks I think of another website, the guy who calls out the MSM. It's late, but there's a lot of hate here; I could be wrong in my perceptions, but what the hell are you so all-fired angry about? Oh, besides the general state of the world right now, and the Dems in particular? :evilgrin:

[Tactical Progressive]

41. What website is that? n/t

[Old Mouse]

43. I agree

I read his piece, and it seems quite good actually... saying the exact opposite of what people here are thinking he says.:shrug:

We USED to blame disaster on morality so that human behavior could egotistically be at the center of the story, but now we know it is just the power of nature, and our morality has nothing to do with it.

[melnjones]

44. I'm with you...

We get mad when people disagree with us...now we get mad when people AGREE with us too? Maybe I just don't know enough about Brooks either, but dang.

[NVMojo]

39. If that's the case, it misfired cuz DC is still standing ...

[msmcghee]

40. Once human intelligence developed to . .

. . the point where we could connect cause and effect of some things - like having sex usually means a baby nine months later, for example, we eventually understood that all effects must have causes. That was a major milestone in the human story.

Once we got there, we needed religion as the necessary filler to keep us from feeling really stupid about all the effects that we still didn't know the causes of.

By now, with all the advances in scientific understanding that we've seen, even in our own lifetimes, you'd think that people would realize that all things happen for rational reasons - even if we don't know what they are yet.

But, many people still cling to the supernatural reasons rather than accept that it's OK not to know everything - like right now. And they still cause the pain and suffering that has always been the partner of the belief in irrational causes.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

42. you know, that's just disgusting! n/t

[BurtWorm]

45. You have to read the whole article. He's not saying what you think he is.

He's actually saying that as much as he wants to hold those views of a universe with a plan, this event deprives him of it. There is no reason why these people died. Even David Brooks can see that. I agree particularly with the bolded bit.

"In the newspaper essays and television commentaries reflecting upon it all, there would often be some awkward passage as the author tried to conclude with some easy uplift - a little bromide about how wonderfully we all rallied together, and how we are all connected by our common humanity in times of crisis.

"The world's generosity has indeed been amazing, but sometimes we use our compassion as a self-enveloping fog to obscure our view of the abyss. Somehow it's wrong to turn this event into a good-news story so we can all feel warm this holiday season. It's wrong to turn it into a story about us, who gave, rather than about them, whose lives were ruined. It's certainly wrong to turn this into yet another petty political spat, as many tried, disgustingly, to do.

"This is a moment to feel deeply bad, for the dead and for those of us who have no explanation."


Burt Worm here: I think the whole American reaction to this event has been bizarre and perverse. Bizarreness and perversion seems all we're capable of anymore.

[librarycard]

47. Never heard of the guy, but I agree with his last paragraph

The world's generosity has indeed been amazing, but sometimes we use our compassion as a self-enveloping fog to obscure our view of the abyss. Somehow it's wrong to turn this event into a good-news story so we can all feel warm this holiday season. It's wrong to turn it into a story about us, who gave, rather than about them, whose lives were ruined. It's certainly wrong to turn this into yet another petty political spat, as many tried, disgustingly, to do.

One can interpret the "political spat" comment in several ways. For me it brings to mind the Bushies upset that Clinton came through with appropriate commentary on the appalling nature of the disaster after Bush stood mute for three days, or to use Brooks' words, "turn(ed) it into a story about us." I also think of Powell's crybaby retort to the UN about stinginess (let's face it, $5 mil, then $15 mil, then $35 mil, and then finally--though we hope not--$350 mil IS stingy). Hey! Colin! The US can't afford to piss off any more countries, especially during a time of world crisis, so enough of the chest beating, PLEASE!

[jadedcherub]

48. Love the NYT.

Fuck ya.



.jc.

[sherilocks]

49. The header in no way describes the op-ed piece

written by David Brooks. Anyway, The NY Times didn't say it, David Brooks did. Read the whole piece before commenting, please. David Brooks isn't my favorite columnist, but at least read the damned article before posting. Thanks.

[Princess Turandot]

50. David Brooks writes some of the more unusual columns for the NYT..

last year, he wrote a column saying that blue collar workers voted for rich Rebugs because it somehow let them live a fantasy that they too might some day be wealthy. I came away with the sense (in the old article) that he was saying that they were morons in more polite words.

I read the linked column twice, and couldn't determine exactly what his point was, other than to whine that no one should have criticized Bush for his lack of response. It was as if he felt he should write abt the tsunami tragedy and produced a bucket of babble instead, since he probably has no empathy for the victims at all. I rarely read his columns on line since I won't give him the credit of an extra web-click.

Keep in mind though, that he is just a columnist, one of the few conservatives they use to balance out Krugman, Dowd, Bob Herbert and to some degree Kristof.(Herbert, whom I don't see quoted here often, is smartest one of the bunch IMO.)

[seabeyond]

52. as i said those four hurricanes into florida

gods wrath. a wake up call for them to not steal election. oooopsie, they didnt listen. now what is to come of florida. stepping back and waiting

is this what they are saying