So, you’ve stumbled onto my humble little blog. Perhaps you are a Millenial wondering why most of your friends aren’t fully employed. Or wondering why ObamaKare is being shoved down your throat. Or why your generation is on the hook for a national debt that stands at $17 $18 Trillion and counting. Maybe you are scratching your head wondering why your President thinks Global Warming the weather is more worrisome than Islamic Terror. And perhaps you’ve started to become aware there might be something the corrupt and biased lame stream media isn’t telling you. The answer, to these and other existential questions, is ... the Left - specifically, the modern American Progressive. Think of this site as a portal to a richer understanding of this answer, a portal purposely designed with a consciously cock-eyed bent to keep it entertaining. Because the First Amendment is forever and the Internet never forgets. (Plus you better figure out FICA isn't the name of a Swedish bikini model, before she eats your entire paycheck.)

How to use the portal? You could dive into my archive*. I was most active here 2010-2012, but that matters not. How many times do I need to demonstrate the central point? To wit, the political / ideological Left is a menace to the constitutional republic and must be resisted lest the American experiment in liberty devolve into socialist dystopia. If it's the more pointed hand-to-hand combat of the comment board that whets your appetite, click the 'My Disqus Comments' widget. I continue to visit that world from time to time as a light diversion. Or you could browse through my blog roll. It's a very representative collection of center-right blogs, though hardly exhaustive. I can't do the political / ideology thing 24x7, and you probably can't either. Leave that to the hysterical, talking point chanting, mob agitating, race baiting, election stealing, gaia worshiping, straw man torching, Islamic Terrorist appeasing, organized Left (aka OFA, MSNBC, UAW, SEIU, Think Progress, Media Matters, most of legacy media, the politically correct faculty lounge, anybody who belonged to Journolist, anybody connected to Occupy Wall Street, anything funded by George Soros or Tom Steyer, their paid Internet trolls, and the rest of the usual Team Leftie suspects).

*Re-posting encouraged. No need to ask for permission. Just follow the commonly accepted convention of acknowledging this site as original source with a link back. That way, you leave the asking for forgiveness to me.

A Table With Clickable Stuff

My Disqus
US Debt Clock

Enter your
email address:

Visit to learn more!

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Debating Mr. Brooks

I’d like to thank David Brooks for encouraging me to continue with this blogging thing. He’s been writing opinion columns as a living, for a very long time. When I read his New York Times column today, I thought to myself: “hey, I could be this stupendously stupid in just a few minutes a day for no pay.”

The thesis of his article seems to be that if you disagree with the Liberal Left’s agenda, you are not part of the “educated class.”
The next few paragraphs are Brooks’ most appalling paragraphs (all italicized) followed by my reply to each.



The educated class believes in global warming, so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise. The educated class supports abortion rights, so public opinion is shifting against them. The educated class supports gun control, so opposition to gun control is mounting.


Global Warming: Your use of the word “believes” is very telling. Your educated class has fallen for an unscientific religion that recently had to change its name from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change;’ because the facts of worldwide temperature readings were not cooperating with initial assumptions. Try googling Dr. Fred Singer, or Christopher Horner, or Lord Christopher Monckton, and get back to me on whether you still think the science is settled and the danger justifies drastic measures. Actually, I’m kind of surprised you hadn’t gotten the memo and used the ‘climate change’ label instead. I’d expect more from an educated guy.

Abortion rights: So, you see lack of education in someone acting on the conscientious conviction an aborted fetus equals a killed human being? God help us if we must hold the reverse to be true: education equals a coarsening of the conscience to questions of morality.

Gun Control: The smart kids like cause and effect analysis, right? Why don’t you reflect on this one and get back to me: The murder rate in the District of Columbia is the lowest it has been in 45 years. 2009 is also the year legal gun ownership became possible in DC.


The story is the same in foreign affairs. The educated class is internationalist, so isolationist sentiment is now at an all-time high, according to a Pew Research Center survey. The educated class believes in multilateral action, so the number of Americans who believe we should “go our own way” has risen sharply.


2nd Sentence: The phrasing sets up a false dichotomy between internationalism and isolationism. It is perfectly possible to engage the world while protecting our own national interests. A growing percentage of  the ‘uneducated class’ (your thesis) is being stirred to action by the perceived failure of the current administration to protect America’s interests and protect America’s citizens.

3rd Sentence: Your phrase “go your own way” has a fancier name – unilateralism. I looked it up for the rest of us. It means acting in accordance with your own interests. If to be educated means to subordinate US sovereignty to unaccountable UN kleptocrats, count me in as proudly uneducated.


The tea party movement is a large, fractious confederation of Americans who are defined by what they are against. They are against the concentrated power of the educated class. They believe big government, big business, big media and the affluent professionals are merging to form self-serving oligarchy — with bloated government, unsustainable deficits, high taxes and intrusive regulation.


All transformational movements start out ‘fractious.’ Some stay that way – just ask Leon Trotsky after Lenin’s assassin buried an ice-pick in his forehead.   And, besides, a better moniker for the TEA party at the present would be 'leaderless.'  That's why it is also authentically 'grass roots.'  Tea Party patriots are united in being for smaller government. They don’t give a hoot about big business, except to the extent they are hurt when big government bail outs big business – see GM, TARP, AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. They don’t give a hoot about big media – except to the extent they are now sorting out who spins and who reports. There are easily understandable reasons Fox News wins in the ratings. They want an America where anyone can become an affluent professional, not an America where affluent professionals are a ‘class.’

Do you contend government is not bloated, the deficit is sustainable, taxes too low, and regulations too few? I contend otherwise.


The Obama administration is premised on the conviction that pragmatic federal leaders with professional expertise should have the power to implement programs to solve the country’s problems. Many Americans do not have faith in that sort of centralized expertise or in the political class generally.


You can use ‘Obama’ and ‘pragmatic’ in the same sentence? Really? Have you been awake for the past year?

Our Founding Fathers did not have faith in centralized expertise or permanent political classes. That’s why they wrote the Constitution and the bill of rights the way they did.


In the near term, the tea party tendency will dominate the Republican Party. It could be the ruin of the party, pulling it in an angry direction that suburban voters will not tolerate. But don’t underestimate the deep reservoirs of public disgust. If there is a double-dip recession, a long period of stagnation, a fiscal crisis, a terrorist attack or some other major scandal or event, the country could demand total change, creating a vacuum that only the tea party movement and its inheritors would be in a position to fill.

Personally, I’m not a fan of this movement. But I can certainly see its potential to shape the coming decade.


I’ve attended some tea parties. I’ll wager the terms “suburban” and “voter” describes nearly 100% of the attendees. And as far the word “angry” is concerned – yes, there is a good amount of righteous anger at the gatherings. The righteous anger is directed at ruling elites who the TEA party patriots see as irresponsibly exercising the powers granted to them by the people.  What could be a more authentically American gathering, I ask you? I also recommend you reflect on this question: where are the news stories of riots by TEA party patriots? Now think a moment about the rioting that is routine at impassioned left wing gatherings (oh, say, COP15 , for example).

If events create a vacuum, and this vacuum is filled by the kind of people I’ve met at TEA parties, the republic will be better off for it.


Brooks’ article is especially galling given who he is – the New York Times’ supposed house ‘conservative.’ This mere fact itself could serve as fodder for a long dissertation on the corrupt state of modern journalism. Point one: a house ‘conservative’ positing arguments based in class distinction.

Since I disagree with Brooks on all these issues, he gives himself no choice but to label me as ‘uneducated.’ I therefore label him in return as a ‘pseudo-intellectual.’

Thomas Sowell – a real conservative – has a new book out (“Intellectuals and Society”) that serves as a scholarly examination of the dangers of pseudo-intellectualism. Brooks should give it a read.
Share the genius :


  1. Great work, sir. I stand proudly "uneducated" at your side. As Ronald Reagan said, "they just no so much that isn't so." A description that fits Brooks to a T. (If Brooks is a conservative, I'm a Vulcan.)

  2. Thanks for the moral support, Jimmy. I browsed through your nice blog. You are most definitely human and not Vulcan. Therefore, it is confirmed Brooks is no conservative. :)

  3. Looks like somebody out there agrees with me. Check out the "American Thinker" article on the link below. I love how the author (Stuart Schwartz) makes liberal (pun intended) use of humor and Brooks comes off as so humorless. Happy warriors always win!


*All Reasonable Feedback Always Welcome*