A Worthwhile Read

[Guest]

Here's a link to an excellent column by David Brooks in today's New York Times. To those of you who don't read Brooks regularly, he's the Times' conservative political columnist. He's not conservative enough for many are on the far right and seldom writes in a way that would appease the implacability of those further on the liberal left either, but I've found him provide thoughtful commentary on the "condition political" in the U.S. Here's a link to the column I'm recommending for today's reading...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/opinion/12brooks.html?ref=opinion

Right on, David!

Even our Villages Forum constituency reflects the partisanship, disagreement, and absence of Brooks-like thoughtfulness. Not only do we partisans assign our emotions and distrust to our political leaders, but we do the same towards everything from the media to segments of our business society and even to states, cities and regions of the country. I'm guessing that our collective feelings and beliefs regarding those politicians who we count as opponents would likely be a tie, pretty much like the rest of the country.

Our problem is the same as the rest of the country. Some of you agree with little of what I believe but aren't willing to even listen to my arguments. I'm sure you feel the same about me. I can see the same behavior, with even more intensity, on the various blogs and political cable TV entertainment shows. The problem is that if and when the Republicans get a bunch of Democrats thrown out of office in 2010 and 2012, it won't create a sufficient plurality to change how effective our government will be in addressing the increasingly critical problems facing the country. All that will happen is that there will be a different "party of no".

Too bad for us. We've botched it up pretty badly--electing representatives who fail to govern in our behalf, or even govern at all! Maybe future generations will resolve the problems. I'm actually pretty certain that they will. My only question is: will the future generations speak English or Mandarin?

[Guest]

Brooks lost me when he said Obama was a center-left politician. There is nothing centrist about him. Brooks goes on to say that Obama is not a big government liberal. If he's not then I would hate to see one. He says health care moderately tinkers with the status quo. What world is Brooks living in???

[Guest]

For it's brief size, this is the best and most accurate summary I've seen of Obama's intentions and efforts thus far. Very well done!

Let the name-calling and comments that Brooks lives on another planet continue.... who cares.

[Guest]

a very good summary of what he is trying to do.

[Guest]

Brooks lost me when he said Obama was a center-left politician. There is nothing centrist about him. Brooks goes on to say that Obama is not a big government liberal. If he's not then I would hate to see one. He says health care moderately tinkers with the status quo. What world is Brooks living in???


+1 I thought the whole thing was a crock. Sally Jo said was spot on"What world is Brooks living in?" Not a big government liberal...bawaaaaaaaa

[Guest]

Searched the net for info on Brooks. Here is an example of a comment on a blog. This isn't a written article just an unpublished comment:
Whatever else he is, Brooks is a fanatic elitist. His "conservatism" of the European-style monarchist variety, as opposed to any of the flavors of American conservatism. And in his world, Obama has the proper patents of nobility from Harvard and Columbia, eats the right food, wears the right clothes, etc, so the unwashed masses should shut up and let him do his thing.

[Guest]

That pretty well sums Brooks up in a nutshell.

[Guest]

When one doesn't agree with what is written, without even reading it in the context of all the information available, it demonstrates with laser-like focus exactly the point that Brooks was making in his column.

In the last paragraph of he column, Brooks makes his main point...

"We live in a country in which many people live in information cocoons in which they only talk to members of their own party and read blogs of their own sect. They come away with perceptions fundamentally at odds with reality..."

Wow! Some of the responses here demonstrate exactly what Brooks was saying about the situation in our country right now. If this dosen't demonstrate the metaphor used to describe the act of lashing out at the bearer of bad news, I don't know what does. Kill the messenger.

[Guest]

"They come away with perceptions fundamentally at odds with reality..."



One must wonder whose reality one is at odds with........

[Guest]

disagreeing with a position is being unrealistic!!!

That has been the theme of this administration and it's supporters since two years prior to the election and held as a gold standard measure since.

No struggle, no progress.

btk

[Guest]

When one doesn't agree with what is written, without even reading it in the context of all the information available, it demonstrates with laser-like focus exactly the point that Brooks was making in his column.

In the last paragraph of he column, Brooks makes his main point...

"We live in a country in which many people live in information cocoons in which they only talk to members of their own party and read blogs of their own sect. They come away with perceptions fundamentally at odds with reality..."

Wow! Some of the responses here demonstrate exactly what Brooks was saying about the situation in our country right now. If this dosen't demonstrate the metaphor used to describe the act of lashing out at the bearer of bad news, I don't know what does. Kill the messenger.

What bothers me about some of the posters who disagree with you, Brooks, the President and anyone else whom they dislike, is that they seem angry and frustrated enough to literally kill the messenger. These folks aren't just in information cocoons, their comments betray real hatred. They are so emotionally charged that they can't respond reasonably or factually to anything which is outside of their political mindset.

I've thought about being manipulative and testing this theory with a post like: "Hey, Obama may have his faults, but he sure seems to be a good father to his kids". I have a hunch that there would be some very negative remarks about the President in response.

And to those of you who are fuming at this, let's take an objective measure: imagine you are a secret service agent supervising the President's visit to Sumter Landing next month. (ok, ok, that'll never happen, but just make-believe for a minute!).. you've been briefed about TOTV and read what these posters have said about the President.
Would you make sure they were weren't anywhere nearby?
I think the answer is "yes".

[Guest]

..."imagine you are a secret service agent supervising the President's visit to Sumter Landing next month. (ok, ok, that'll never happen, but just make-believe for a minute!).."

Why would it "never happen"?

I can't imagine the President being one of the types Brooks is referring to, ""We live in a country in which many people live in information cocoons in which they only talk to members of their own party..."

Well, on the other hand....

[Guest]

What bothers me about some of the posters who disagree with you, Brooks, the President and anyone else whom they dislike, is that they seem angry and frustrated enough to literally kill the messenger. These folks aren't just in information cocoons, their comments betray real hatred. They are so emotionally charged that they can't respond reasonably or factually to anything which is outside of their political mindset.

I've thought about being manipulative and testing this theory with a post like: "Hey, Obama may have his faults, but he sure seems to be a good father to his kids". I have a hunch that there would be some very negative remarks about the President in response.

And to those of you who are fuming at this, let's take an objective measure: imagine you are a secret service agent supervising the President's visit to Sumter Landing next month. (ok, ok, that'll never happen, but just make-believe for a minute!).. you've been briefed about TOTV and read what these posters have said about the President.
Would you make sure they were weren't anywhere nearby?
I think the answer is "yes".
Nobody here is threatening anybody. YOUR OUT OF LINE!!!!!

[Guest]

ijusluvit--- Disagreeing with the President's policies doesn't mean you hate the guy. Obviously, anyone who doesn't agree with the way he is governing is living in a cocoon, as far as you're concerned. Just for the record, as far as I know Obama is a great father!!

[Guest]

be some very negative remarks about the President in response.

And to those of you who are fuming at this, let's take an objective measure: imagine you are a secret service agent supervising the President's visit to Sumter Landing next month. (ok, ok, that'll never happen, but just make-believe for a minute!).. you've been briefed about TOTV and read what these posters have said about the President.
Would you make sure they were weren't anywhere nearby?
I think the answer is "yes".

OK. Take your statement and substitute San Francisco and President Bush. Would that mean they would have to empty the whole city when Bush visits? Rather facetious, huh?

[Guest]

What bothers me about some of the posters who disagree with you, Brooks, the President and anyone else whom they dislike, is that they seem angry and frustrated enough to literally kill the messenger. These folks aren't just in information cocoons, their comments betray real hatred. They are so emotionally charged that they can't respond reasonably or factually to anything which is outside of their political mindset.

I've thought about being manipulative and testing this theory with a post like: "Hey, Obama may have his faults, but he sure seems to be a good father to his kids". I have a hunch that there would be some very negative remarks about the President in response.

And to those of you who are fuming at this, let's take an objective measure: imagine you are a secret service agent supervising the President's visit to Sumter Landing next month. (ok, ok, that'll never happen, but just make-believe for a minute!).. you've been briefed about TOTV and read what these posters have said about the President.
Would you make sure they were weren't anywhere nearby?
I think the answer is "yes".


I dont get the ending of this post at all and would love some explanation from IJUSLUVIT !

I, one who has opposed this President way before he was the nominee, can think of NOBODY...not one person on this board who has EVER....ONCE said anything personal or threatening about this President !

Methinks you need a real attitude adjustment if you equate disagreeing with policy to anything close to what you so crudely suggest !

[Guest]

Looks like we've morphed away from the original topic once again. The original post suggested that David Brooks column was a worthwhile read. The principal topic of his column had nothing at all to do with endorsing or criticizing President Obama. The point Brooks was trying to make was that people live in information cuccoons these days, refusing to even consider what people who don't endorse their political beliefs think.

In his column, he uses what President Obama has said and proposed and reflects on how those to his left and right have interpreted him. He is critical of the unwillingness of the country these days to listen to the statements and plans of a political leader in an attempt to determine whether those plans are worthy of support.

At the end of his column he makes the point that "in a sensible country, (a political leader) would be able to clearly define this project without fear of offending the people he needs to get legislation passed." Brooks goes on to criticize the current polarized feelings in the country, saying "...but we don’t live in that country. We live in a country in which many people live in information cocoons in which they only talk to members of their own party and read blogs of their own sect. They come away with perceptions fundamentally at odds with reality..."

The problem is that he uses President Obama as the example of how people on the left and right are unwilling to even consider ideas other than their own. All the use of Obama's name did was to set off several posters here, criticizing Brooks, the President, and each other.

If there was ever a column that demonstrates the problem of partisanship in this country right now, it was this one. That's why I recommended it and entitled the whole thread, "A Worthwhile Read". For some of you, I was wasting my time. As Brooks said, you're too involved in your own little information cuccoons to even listen, let alone think.

[Guest]

Looks like we've morphed away from the original topic once again. The original post suggested that David Brooks column was a worthwhile read. The principal topic of his column had nothing at all to do with endorsing or criticizing President Obama. The point Brooks was trying to make was that people live in information cuccoons these days, refusing to even consider what people who don't endorse their political beliefs think.

In his column, he uses what President Obama has said and proposed and reflects on how those to his left and right have interpreted him. He is critical of the unwillingness of the country these days to listen to the statements and plans of a political leader in an attempt to determine whether those plans are worthy of support.

At the end of his column he makes the point that "in a sensible country, (a political leader) would be able to clearly define this project without fear of offending the people he needs to get legislation passed." Brooks goes on to criticize the current polarized feelings in the country, saying "...but we don’t live in that country. We live in a country in which many people live in information cocoons in which they only talk to members of their own party and read blogs of their own sect. They come away with perceptions fundamentally at odds with reality..."

The problem is that he uses President Obama as the example of how people on the left and right are unwilling to even consider ideas other than their own. All the use of Obama's name did was to set off several posters here, criticizing Brooks, the President, and each other.

If there was ever a column that demonstrates the problem of partisanship in this country right now, it was this one. That's why I recommended it and entitled the whole thread, "A Worthwhile Read". For some of you, I was wasting my time. As Brooks said, you're too involved in your own little information cuccoons to even listen, let alone think.

I am rather new to political debating but I have been to a few sights to ease my curiosity. I want to say this this is the most informed place I have been and most here give credible links and great insight to what is happening in these tumultuous times. I also think that there is an increased awareness of what is happening today and people of all walks of life are using more sources than was available in the past to make an informed opinion about the current state of affairs.

Therefore,I think that there is less sheep today then ever before. I see people who never took an active role in politics in their life, getting involved. I think the good people of today's involvements should be commended and not continually criticized and condescended by some in the media and elsewhere.
I just hope the determination and involvement will continue into November so we can vote these people out of office who do not listen to us but continue on their path to reconstruct American into some kind of country that we will not recognize until it is too late.

[Guest]

1) The New York Times would not hire a real Conservative.

2) Obama is not and probably will never be anthing but a far left winger.

3) Thank god for partisans. They represent what our Forefathers intended.

4) The uninformed vote for politicians who will agree to give them hand outs.

5) It is sad when someone who is a Liberal posts on this site pretending to be an independent. That Seminar ruse is childish.

[Guest]

That has been the theme of this administration and it's supporters since two years prior to the election...

Would you really call David Brooks a "supporter of this administration"?

[Guest]

Would you really call David Brooks a "supporter of this administration"?


I would not, but he is a HUGE LARGE fan of Barrack Obama and has been for years !

[Guest]

I would not, but he is a HUGE LARGE fan of Barrack Obama and has been for years !

Bucco is right. Also, he is known as "the liberal's favorite conservative" which is kind of an oxymoron. No real conservative takes him seriously.