Monday, April 12, 2010
In The Conversation, David Brooks and Gail Collins talk between columns every Wednesday.
Check this crap out! It reads like a parody.
Gail Collins: David, this is not the first time somebody has promised that a discussion of sports is going to quickly evolve into something else. This is always a prelude to a discussion of sports. Sometimes with an occasional oblique reference to quantum physics or the ancient Greeks. But go ahead, I’m resigned.
David Brooks: O.K. My first subject is Barack Obama. He is without question the best basketball player ever in the White House, except for Taft, of course, who was the Charles Barkley of his day.
Ha ha ha!! Because they're both fat! Ha ha ha !!!
During the N.C.A.A. tournament Obama beat CBS’s basketball analyst Clark Kellogg in a game of P-O-T-U-S (the White House version of Horse). And then, being Obama, he said something very self-aware. He said that Kellogg (who was a genuine basketball star before going into broadcasting), only let him get close in the game because he didn’t realize that Obama might go on to win. That shows the president is wise to the wiles of flattery. Good for him.
So he's not stupid enough to think that he beat THIS GUY:
fair and square?
But then Monday he threw out the first pitch at Nationals Park. Atrocious. I don’t mean to be sexist, but the man throws like a Democrat.
Ha ha ha!! Because only girls are Democra. . . wait. That doesn't make sense.
The gap between his basketball ability and his baseball ability is so wide as to be a threat to the nation. The fact that he did not have the wisdom to bring in a team of pitching consultants to help with his delivery is a sign of dangerous hubris.
Or a sign of hos having more important "Predidenty" stuff to do.
Gail Collins: I don’t know if I’ve ever mentioned it but I hate hate hate all that White House basketball-buddy stuff.
Why can't he play golf like a real president?
Now, that's presidential!
Maybe I could demand that the president devote equal recreational attention to the national pastime. He could certainly find a trillion women in the administration who could play baseball at his level.
Ha ha ha , because girls are not good at basebal! ha ha ha !
David Brooks: A few hours after that atrocity of opening day, Duke went on to beat Butler for the national championship. Unlike 90 percent of America, I was rooting for Duke last night. This was widely cast as a class conflict — the upper crust Dukies against the humble Midwestern farm boys.
That is completely non-surprising. Almost everyone loves an underdog,
but oh, no. Not Brooks!
Gail Collins: I’m sorry, when the difference is one weensy basket, I’d say Duke won neither by privilege nor hard work but by sheer luck. But don’t let me interrupt your thought here. I detect the subtle and skillful transition to a larger non-sport point.
Please, God, let that be sarcasm!
David Brooks: Yes. I was going to say that for the first time in human history, rich people work longer hours than middle class or poor people. How do you construct a rich versus poor narrative when the rich are more industrious?
And there it is.
The trademark David Brooks Bullshit.
Just look how industrious these rich people are being:
Compared to these lazy bum poor folks:
Also, most "poor" or blue collar folks are paid by the hour. That means that even if you are willing and able to work more than your standard 40 hours a week or 8 hours a day, depending on what state you live in, your boss would have to approve overtime pay for you to work extra. Most companies are understandably reluctant to pay overtime, so not a lot of working class folks end up working more than 40/week.
Whereas executives are paid a salary, so they can spend as many hours "working" as they see fit. "Working" in this instance includes reading reports, 3-martini business lunches, watching powerpoint presentations, and hitting the executive gym.
Gail Collins: It may be true that the more hours you work on average, the wealthier you are likely to be. But while it’s harder to quantify, I’m pretty sure that the work gets more and more pleasant the higher up the ladder you climb. Forty hours in a chicken-plucking factory feels a lot longer than 60 hours managing a large corporation.
I'm not sure who Gail Collins is, but I don't think it would take a lot of money to get her to kick David Brooks in the crotch. Let's take up a collection!
David Brooks: Here’s the trickiest case of all. I don’t know if you saw Tara Parker-Pope’s piece in the Science section on Tuesday, but she reported on an interesting set of statistics. First, parents are spending more time with their kids today than in previous generations.
Actually, she said that the time parents spend with kids has risen "since the mid-nineties," not "previous generations." I'll guarantee you that my parents' generation spent a lot more time with their kids than today's parents (for better or worse) But why let facts get in the way?
Before 1995, mothers spent on average 12 hours a week with their children. By 2007, that number had leapt to 21.2 for college-educated moms and 15.9 hours for those with less education. I was fascinated by how parental time correlates to education. Is it possible that college-educated parents are spending more time passing down their advantages than other parents? Could it be that the rich replicate themselves by dint of hard work and parental attention, on top of all the other less worthy advantages?
Oh, I see. I'm not rich because my parents didn't deserve to have a rich son. If only they had worked harder. . .oh, wait. My parents worked their butts off, and spent tons of time with us. Enough time to make me and my siblings all a bit neurotic. So, shouldn't I be rich now?
If only I'd understood earlier how deserving the rich are!
Oh, they've worked so hard!
Redefining What It Means to Work Hard
By DAVID BROOKS AND GAIL COLLINSIn The Conversation, David Brooks and Gail Collins talk between columns every Wednesday.
Check this crap out! It reads like a parody.
David Brooks: Gail, to wrench me out of my fiscal funk last week, you allowed me to talk about sports and sex, in the person of Tiger Woods. I want you to know how much that helped.
Today, I’m going to start off talking about sports, but I promise, we’ll soon be discussing social class.
Oh, good! David Brooks' views on social class. For a minute, I thought you were going to talk about something interesting, like sports.
Gail Collins: David, this is not the first time somebody has promised that a discussion of sports is going to quickly evolve into something else. This is always a prelude to a discussion of sports. Sometimes with an occasional oblique reference to quantum physics or the ancient Greeks. But go ahead, I’m resigned.
David Brooks: O.K. My first subject is Barack Obama. He is without question the best basketball player ever in the White House, except for Taft, of course, who was the Charles Barkley of his day.
Ha ha ha!! Because they're both fat! Ha ha ha !!!
During the N.C.A.A. tournament Obama beat CBS’s basketball analyst Clark Kellogg in a game of P-O-T-U-S (the White House version of Horse). And then, being Obama, he said something very self-aware. He said that Kellogg (who was a genuine basketball star before going into broadcasting), only let him get close in the game because he didn’t realize that Obama might go on to win. That shows the president is wise to the wiles of flattery. Good for him.
So he's not stupid enough to think that he beat THIS GUY:
fair and square?
But then Monday he threw out the first pitch at Nationals Park. Atrocious. I don’t mean to be sexist, but the man throws like a Democrat.
Ha ha ha!! Because only girls are Democra. . . wait. That doesn't make sense.
The gap between his basketball ability and his baseball ability is so wide as to be a threat to the nation. The fact that he did not have the wisdom to bring in a team of pitching consultants to help with his delivery is a sign of dangerous hubris.
Or a sign of hos having more important "Predidenty" stuff to do.
Gail Collins: I don’t know if I’ve ever mentioned it but I hate hate hate all that White House basketball-buddy stuff.
Why can't he play golf like a real president?
Now, that's presidential!
Maybe I could demand that the president devote equal recreational attention to the national pastime. He could certainly find a trillion women in the administration who could play baseball at his level.
Ha ha ha , because girls are not good at basebal! ha ha ha !
David Brooks: A few hours after that atrocity of opening day, Duke went on to beat Butler for the national championship. Unlike 90 percent of America, I was rooting for Duke last night. This was widely cast as a class conflict — the upper crust Dukies against the humble Midwestern farm boys.
That is completely non-surprising. Almost everyone loves an underdog,
but oh, no. Not Brooks!
Gail Collins: I’m sorry, when the difference is one weensy basket, I’d say Duke won neither by privilege nor hard work but by sheer luck. But don’t let me interrupt your thought here. I detect the subtle and skillful transition to a larger non-sport point.
Please, God, let that be sarcasm!
David Brooks: Yes. I was going to say that for the first time in human history, rich people work longer hours than middle class or poor people. How do you construct a rich versus poor narrative when the rich are more industrious?
And there it is.
The trademark David Brooks Bullshit.
Just look how industrious these rich people are being:
Compared to these lazy bum poor folks:
Also, most "poor" or blue collar folks are paid by the hour. That means that even if you are willing and able to work more than your standard 40 hours a week or 8 hours a day, depending on what state you live in, your boss would have to approve overtime pay for you to work extra. Most companies are understandably reluctant to pay overtime, so not a lot of working class folks end up working more than 40/week.
Whereas executives are paid a salary, so they can spend as many hours "working" as they see fit. "Working" in this instance includes reading reports, 3-martini business lunches, watching powerpoint presentations, and hitting the executive gym.
Gail Collins: It may be true that the more hours you work on average, the wealthier you are likely to be. But while it’s harder to quantify, I’m pretty sure that the work gets more and more pleasant the higher up the ladder you climb. Forty hours in a chicken-plucking factory feels a lot longer than 60 hours managing a large corporation.
I'm not sure who Gail Collins is, but I don't think it would take a lot of money to get her to kick David Brooks in the crotch. Let's take up a collection!
David Brooks: Here’s the trickiest case of all. I don’t know if you saw Tara Parker-Pope’s piece in the Science section on Tuesday, but she reported on an interesting set of statistics. First, parents are spending more time with their kids today than in previous generations.
Actually, she said that the time parents spend with kids has risen "since the mid-nineties," not "previous generations." I'll guarantee you that my parents' generation spent a lot more time with their kids than today's parents (for better or worse) But why let facts get in the way?
Before 1995, mothers spent on average 12 hours a week with their children. By 2007, that number had leapt to 21.2 for college-educated moms and 15.9 hours for those with less education. I was fascinated by how parental time correlates to education. Is it possible that college-educated parents are spending more time passing down their advantages than other parents? Could it be that the rich replicate themselves by dint of hard work and parental attention, on top of all the other less worthy advantages?
Oh, I see. I'm not rich because my parents didn't deserve to have a rich son. If only they had worked harder. . .oh, wait. My parents worked their butts off, and spent tons of time with us. Enough time to make me and my siblings all a bit neurotic. So, shouldn't I be rich now?
If only I'd understood earlier how deserving the rich are!
Oh, they've worked so hard!
If only my parents would have had the foresight to pass a publishing empire on to me and my siblings! What the hell were they thinking?
How is the New York Times putting their imprimatur on this mess?
No wonder newspapers are dying!
How is the New York Times putting their imprimatur on this mess?
No wonder newspapers are dying!
