"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde
Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Where does one even start with something like this?
Posted by Jill | 7:04 AM
That David Brooks is an idiot isn't a secret to anyone. But just when you think Brooks can't get any dumber, he comes out with a column like this one, in which he bemoans that fact that highly-educated people are giving more money to Barack Obama than to John McCain (perhaps because EVERYONE is giving more money to Barack Obama than to John McCain), that these "educated elites" are (horrors!) taking over the government, and he even gets in a veiled allusion to the Twelve Jewish Bankers of legend.

Excerpts illustrating the above:

As in other recent campaigns, lawyers account for the biggest chunk of Democratic donations. They have donated about $18 million to Obama, compared with about $5 million to John McCain, according to data released on June 2 and available at OpenSecrets.org.

People who work at securities and investment companies have given Obama about $8 million, compared with $4.5 for McCain. People who work in communications and electronics have given Obama about $10 million, compared with $2 million for McCain. Professors and other people who work in education have given Obama roughly $7 million, compared with $700,000 for McCain.

Real estate professionals have given Obama $5 million, compared with $4 million for McCain. Medical professionals have given Obama $7 million, compared with $3 million for McCain. Commercial bankers have given Obama $1.6 million, compared with $1.2 million for McCain. Hedge fund and private equity managers have given Obama about $1.6 million, compared with $850,000 for McCain.

When you break it out by individual companies, you find that employees of Goldman Sachs gave more to Obama than workers of any other employer. The Goldman Sachs geniuses are followed by employees of the University of California, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, National Amusements, Lehman Brothers, Harvard and Google. At many of these workplaces, Obama has a three- or four-to-one fund-raising advantage over McCain.

You notice that he isn't saying the COMPANIES are making these donations, it's people who WORK for the companies. That of course means it's as likely that these donations are coming from secretaries, clerks, back-office workers and the mailroom guy, as the brokers and hedge fund managers. But why even look at this when you can attack everyone who doesn't work for Wal-Mart?

The trends are pretty clear: rising economic sectors tend to favor Democrats while declining economic sectors are more likely to favor Republicans. The Democratic Party (not just Obama) has huge fund-raising advantages among people who work in electronics, communications, law and the catchall category of finance, insurance and real estate. Republicans have the advantage in agribusiness, oil and gas and transportation. Which set of sectors do you think are going to grow most quickly in this century’s service economy?

Of course Brooks regards this as a BAD thing -- that rising sectors favor Republicans. He's too dumb to realize that this flies in the face of the Republican conventional wisdom that Democratic policies hurt business development. Why would rising sectors favor Democrats if they think they're going to get screwed? Is Brooks saying that the titans of rising economic sectors are dumber than the titans of Big Oil?

And now we get to the truly cranium-combusting part:

If the Democrats are elected, this highly educated class will have much more say over policy than during the campaign. Undecided voters sway campaigns, but in government, elites generally run things. Once the Republicans are vanquished, I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for that capital gains tax hike or serious measures to expand unionization.

Over the past few years, people from Goldman Sachs have assumed control over large parts of the federal government. Over the next few they might just take over the whole darn thing.


Just whom does Brooks think should run the government? The guy in the two-can beer hat whose belly is painted green at the Steelers game? And don't you just love that mention of "people from Goldman Sachs" assuming "control over large parts of the federal government"? This wouldn't be the first time that "Goldman Sachs" was used to mean "Jews".

Google "Goldman Sachs as code for Jews" and you'll see what I mean.

That Brooks is himself Jewish doesn't excuse him from using standard boilerplate white-supremacist code, even in the service if this peculiar agenda he has to fancy himself as the spokesman for the common man against all those smart people who would dare think it takes intelligence to solve complex problems.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Anonymous Anonymous said...
I wonder if Brooks ever gets tired of saying people who support republicans are ignorant uneducated and not very smart? lol

Blogger D. said...
"Of course Brooks regards this as a BAD thing -- that rising sectors favor Republicans. "

I think you meant "declining" there.

You're welcome.

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Why is David Brooks considered anything but a comedian at this point?

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Yeah, Brooks seems to have no idea how to do simple data analysis. For a better look at the Obama/McCain fundraising debate, see BuzzFlash.com's original report at http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/321

Blogger D. said...
Sorry. The "rising" is correct, but the "Republicans" should be "Democrats." (I need to step away from this for a while if my context fu is that far gone.)