Quotes of the day

posted at 10:35 pm on October 2, 2009 by Allahpundit

“So what is the theme of our history lesson? It is a story of remarkable volume and utter weakness. It is the story of media mavens who claim to represent a hidden majority but who in fact represent a mere niche — even in the Republican Party. It is a story as old as ‘The Wizard of Oz,’ of grand illusions and small men behind the curtain…

Over the years, I have asked many politicians what happens when Limbaugh and his colleagues attack. The story is always the same. Hundreds of calls come in. The receptionists are miserable. But the numbers back home do not move. There is no effect on the favorability rating or the re-election prospects. In the media world, he is a giant. In the real world, he’s not.

But this is not merely a story of weakness. It is a story of resilience. For no matter how often their hollowness is exposed, the jocks still reweave the myth of their own power. They still ride the airwaves claiming to speak for millions. They still confuse listeners with voters. And they are aided in this endeavor by their enablers. They are enabled by cynical Democrats, who love to claim that Rush Limbaugh controls the G.O.P. They are enabled by lazy pundits who find it easier to argue with showmen than with people whose opinions are based on knowledge. They are enabled by the slightly educated snobs who believe that Glenn Beck really is the voice of Middle America.”

***
Limbaugh brushed off the Times columnist’s criticism by asking ‘how many Americans know who David Brooks is?’ — a view supported by another popular conservative radio host.

Mark Levin, author of the best-selling ‘Liberty & Tyranny,’ asked two questions in an e-mail to POLTICO: ‘David Brooks? Does he run Brooks Brothers?’”

***
“Republicans lost the election in 2008, not because of misplaced faith in the power of talk radio; they lost because as the party they broke trust with the conservative values that most Americans on some level agree with. And these are the same values many of our radio commentators espouse. And while conservative talk radio may not stuff the ballot box, it does have an impact: from the immigration debates of 2007-08 to the tea parties, the health care debate, and what I am sure now will be the critical debate over Obama’s bungling of Afghanistan.

Men like Rush, Sean, Mark and Fred were sticking to their principles, and talking about those principles, like free markets, the rule of law, respect for life, federalism, long before the 2008 campaigns, and have continued to do so. They haven’t shifted with the political winds. The same cannot be said for Mr. Brooks.”

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Here’s an alternative QOTD:

“Whoops, looks like Cheney isn’t the only one who shoots people in the face”

CultureWar on October 2, 2009 at 11:56 PM

Domestic agenda aside, we were the trigger for action against Iran, we were to provide the turn-key package: intel, logistics and the hammer on behalf of a coalition of the willing that mirrored the consensus of the 1st Gulf war. Worst case, it would have been over in 4 days. Under nObama these efforts have vaporized and we all suffer the consequences and so will our kids and their kids!

Gump still makes me cry………..

dmann on October 2, 2009 at 11:57 PM

Lanceman on October 2, 2009 at 11:50 PM

I bet you liked the show “Connections”, too.

Strange world.

CPL 310 on October 2, 2009 at 11:57 PM

Here’s an alternative QOTD:

“Whoops, looks like Cheney isn’t the only one who shoots people in the face”

CultureWar on October 2, 2009 at 11:56 PM

Awesome!

CPL 310 on October 3, 2009 at 12:00 AM

No real conservative gives a rat’s left gonad what David Brooks thinks about anything.

Dave R. on October 3, 2009 at 12:00 AM

David “Monica” Brooks.

Really Right on October 3, 2009 at 12:01 AM

How many people does Brooks think he’s converting with his columns in the Times and his appearances on The News Hour? His approach is useful, I guess, but if Rush and the rest weren’t scoring points, the left wouldn’t be so busy bad mouthing them and trying to get them off the air.

flataffect on October 3, 2009 at 12:01 AM

I bet you liked the show “Connections”, too.

Strange world.

CPL 310 on October 2, 2009 at 11:57 PM

Actually, I’ve never seen even one whole episode of ‘Voyager’.
They lost me when they did ‘Deep Space Nine’.
But I am a ‘Trekker’(not Trekkie) And I do like other scifi.
Hell’s bells, I just watched an episode of ‘Lost In Space’ about three hours ago…

Lanceman on October 3, 2009 at 12:06 AM

Dave R. on October 3, 2009 at 12:00 AM

Drywall? You goin’ conservative on us? ;P

Lanceman on October 3, 2009 at 12:07 AM

Intellectually, there’s not a whit of difference between David Brooks and Brooks Shields.

Professionally, however, she’s an actress who, for a living, pretends to be someone else.

He, for a living, just pretends.

TXUS on October 3, 2009 at 12:09 AM

I bet you liked the show “Connections”, too.

Strange world.

CPL 310 on October 2, 2009 at 11:57 PM

Thanks for the link. I’ve seen the DVDs for “Connections” available at the local library, but at first glance it looked like a great-granddad of those “paranormal investigations” schlockfests that SF and History make these days. After reading the Wiki, I’ll have to give those discs a chance sometime, and soon.

Blacksmith on October 3, 2009 at 12:11 AM

HornetSting on October 2, 2009 at 11:40 PM
You know? In my entire life, I’ve never seen a hornet. (TV and pictures don’t count) Only paper wasps, yeller jackets and various bees.

Lanceman on October 2, 2009 at 11:45 PM

You don’t see us coming….

HornetSting on October 3, 2009 at 12:21 AM

HornetSting: Were gonna get banned,hehehehe:) Nite:)

canopfor on October 2, 2009 at 11:46 PM

Nah. Nite.

HornetSting on October 3, 2009 at 12:21 AM

‘cept for that AMC Hornet back in the ’70s.

Lanceman on October 2, 2009 at 11:47 PM

My grandparents had a white one with red seats.

HornetSting on October 3, 2009 at 12:22 AM

Drywall? You goin’ conservative on us? ;P

Lanceman on October 3, 2009 at 12:07 AM

David R. is not David Rywall aka Drywall….

katy on October 3, 2009 at 12:22 AM

HornetSting on October 2, 2009 at 11:44 PM
They must have been flying United, that is until Barry’s colon relaxed and his grip on Brooks let loose. Whooosh right into that engine. Bwwaahhh

Geochelone on October 2, 2009 at 11:47 PM

I believe the company was Taxpayer’s Air…..that’s a great thought, though.

HornetSting on October 3, 2009 at 12:25 AM

David R. is not David Rywall aka Drywall….

katy on October 3, 2009 at 12:22 AM

And Lance Murdock is not Lanceman aka …… Lanceman.

Seriously, Katy, you mean old lady, I know that. Hence the ;P

And before you react, I know you’re not Katy_The_Mean_Old_Lady, too ;P

Lanceman on October 3, 2009 at 12:29 AM


Lanceman on October 3, 2009 at 12:06 AM


Check the link for “Connections”. As Blacksmith noted, it’s not sci-fi. It’s a history show.

Also @Blacksmith on October 3, 2009 at 12:11 AM – it’s a fascinating show. He starts off with one random historical event or development and traces how it influences a myriad of future events – and how events across one side of the world effect something further down the road elsewhere.

It’s well worth it to find and either check out from the library or buy for yourself.

Burke’s “Connections” is something along the lines of having an incredibly wise history teacher weave you a story from a tapestry of a dozen different regions and branches of history – it’s very enriching and entertaining. Okay, glowing praise finished. He also did a version later on called “Connections 2″ several years later – IIRC late 90s, while the original was 1970s.

The “is this evidence of Bigfoot/UFOs/monster of the week?” schlockfest you’re probably thinking of is “In Search Of” with Leonard Nimoy. Which is sometimes also fascinating – research going on at the time into paranormal weirdness is sometimes laughable, and at other times actually intriguing. Reading about the Battle of Los Angeles, for example, is really interesting stuff.

CPL 310 on October 3, 2009 at 12:35 AM

CPL 310 on October 3, 2009 at 12:35 AM

Thanks, I’ll check it out. Sounds fascinating, to coin a phrase.
Always loved ‘In Search Of’.
Too bad Nimoy is an Obozo supporter.

Lanceman on October 3, 2009 at 12:40 AM

“Men like Rush, Sean, Mark and Fred were sticking to their principles, and talking about those principles, like free markets, the rule of law, respect for life, federalism,…”

Speaking in generalities is ok for talk radio and other right of center pundits/bloggers. (although it’s starting to get real boring) The problem is that GOP politicians thought they too could get away with using general terms such as the above. It was a real cop-out. It won’t work. The conservative base wants issue by issue specifics. Something that takes courage, savvy and expertise. Additionally, an elected rep should be “in phase” and connected w/the concerns and desires of his/her constituents. We have nothing that resembles that now and have not, hence 11/7/06 and 11/4/08. And its looks like the same pattern will follow on 11/2/10. A very short 13 mos away. DD

Darvin Dowdy on October 3, 2009 at 12:40 AM

Okay. Let’s switch to a more important point – Why aren’t there any women in that list of sticking to principles? Do conservative women just not do radio?

misslizzi on October 2, 2009 at 10:49 PM

I’ll take “Completely Failed Points” for $500, Alex.

Hawkins1701 on October 3, 2009 at 12:46 AM

Limbaugh brushed off the Times columnist’s criticism by asking ‘how many Americans know who David Brooks is?’

Gee, that sounds a lot like what the Left did to Joe The Plumber: disparage the questioner. Is that the best Rush can do for an answer? I’m disappointed.

Socratease on October 3, 2009 at 1:16 AM

RUSH, BECK, SEAN, LEVIN, HOROWITZ, FRED, MALKIN, COULTER, BRUCE, GELLAR, and even Alan Keyes

…. are the people I fully trust.

I may disagree with one or two of what they say or write … but I know that I totally agree with their Fundamental Principles.

I cannot say the same with Allahpundit.

On the other hand,

Heritage and Ayn Rand are the organizations that I fully trust.

TheAlamos on October 3, 2009 at 1:21 AM

two cheers for Brooks…he is dead on in this comment:

They are enabled by cynical Democrats, who love to claim that Rush Limbaugh controls the G.O.P. They are enabled by lazy pundits who find it easier to argue with showmen than with people whose opinions are based on knowledge. They are enabled by the slightly educated snobs who believe that Glenn Beck really is the voice of Middle America.”

he is talking about MSNBC et al. Rush is after ratings, he gets huge exposure on the Left, he is their favorite strawman

Shortly after the Olympics decision I saw Chris, David Gregory (and someone else)…the story? Rush’s reaction.

r keller on October 3, 2009 at 1:21 AM

Good night Hot Air

Ugly on October 3, 2009 at 1:56 AM

While putting fresh newspaper in the birdcage this morning…

LMAO, what a great lead-in line.

infidel4life on October 3, 2009 at 1:58 AM

The left SOOoooo wishes that they had a Rush Limbaugh.

They don’t.

Mojave Mark on October 3, 2009 at 2:00 AM

In the marketplace of ideas, Brooks’ moldy wares ain’t selling.

infidel4life on October 3, 2009 at 2:04 AM

Yep, we have Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley and Laura Ingraham on radio. Cant think of any other famous conserv radio gals, but there should be!! I know a good many do podcasts on a local level,(SmartGirlPolitics), but they need more exposure. Here in N.Ga we have Martha Zoeller, she does mostly local stuff, but she is good when she gets on the nat’l level, too. Feel sure when our new FCC diversity czar gets through, we will have more women on air. Whether they suck or not.

di butler on October 3, 2009 at 2:33 AM

It is a story as old as ‘The Wizard of Oz,’ of grand illusions and small men behind the curtain…

I swear, I thought he was talking about CBS, ABC, NBC and all the rest.
Libs have confusion skills. They can take words that actually define themselves and use them as weapons to bring down conservatives.
Jim Greer makes this big show on the House floor complete with placards about how the GOP wants people to die,,, all while it is the Democrat party that supports abortion, euthanasia, forced sterilization, death panels, you name it! Pelousie can throw out the word swastika in hopes it will stick to decent, hard working average Americans, while Fascism is being forced upon the nation by the party she leads! Yeah,, so when I read about wizards, grand illusions and small men behind the curtain…, I naturally thought of the Democrats and the MSM!

JellyToast on October 3, 2009 at 3:28 AM

Who the heck is David Brooks?

salmonczar on October 3, 2009 at 3:37 AM

I bet you liked the show “Connections”, too.

Strange world.

CPL 310 on October 2, 2009 at 11:57 PM

OUTSTANDING series. I liked the original series the best, the later one (can’t remember now if there was a II and a III?) was obviously filmed/directed differently which bugged me…too much time between the original series and the follow up I guess, but still good stuff. Burke also did The Day the Universe Changed which was similar and he also did one on the human brain/mind called The Real Thing which was excellent and haven’t seen in ages. What I remember the best of that one was how we not only perceive time differently…time is different for each of us.

The first episode of Connections started off with him talking about the huge northeastern blackout back in ’64 (?) and how it was due to a measly circuit breaker malfunctioning. Then he walks us through a scenario in which modern society breaks down completely and irretrievably. Where do you go? How do you survive? The technological trap.
———-
Who cares about David Brooks…why not post some stuff by Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute here…he’s cool.

Dr. ZhivBlago on October 3, 2009 at 4:51 AM

Over the years, I have asked many politicians what happens when Limbaugh and his colleagues attack. The story is always the same. Hundreds of calls come in. The receptionists are miserable. But the numbers back home do not move. There is no effect on the favorability rating or the re-election prospects. In the media world, he is a giant. In the real world, he’s not. (Quoted from Allahpundits’ lead into the story)

Hey Allahpundit, you give your self away as a closet libtard at best, with statements like these above.
You say you have asked “many politicians”. Who are 5 of them? Name your sources you dweeb.

You write: the “numbers back home do not move”. Where is “home” and what time frame are you talking about, what elections?

Give us some FACTS that back up your statements.

Your subtle and not so subtle attempts at disinformation don’t work with the crew who contribute and read this blog. I hope I am wrong and you are just jealous of these conservatives you disparage. However, with a screen name like allahpundit it is hard to think I’m wrong.

jarhead0311 on October 3, 2009 at 5:23 AM

My appologies to allahpundit for my comments about his column’s opening statements. I see he was quoting David Brooks. My bad. Maybe be you could be a little clearer on quotes of others for slow folk like me. Anyway my bad. Sorree.

Your screen name still bugs me.

jarhead0311 on October 3, 2009 at 5:38 AM

jarhead0311 on October 3, 2009 at 5:23 AM

It’s no AP , it’s a quote of Brook.

the_nile on October 3, 2009 at 5:46 AM

Ah yes, AP, an excellent and simple job of stirring the pot here. Well done. As you expounded upon in another post, this should be worth some good hits and repeated comment viewings.

The problem with David Brooks Brothers is that he isn’t anywhere near as educated as he thinks he is. For him to deride others as “slightly educated” is not only arrogant, it’s misleading. Last time I checked, Brooks Bros. only possesses a B.A. Hardly the stuff of erudition legend.

Brooks is best known as Mr. Bobos in Paradise. He’s kind of the Richard Dawkins of sociology. The problem for Mr. Bobo, however, is that evolution is a serious and complicated discipline, sociology is not. That is, nobody requires a David Brooks to ‘translate’ sociology for them. Whereas Dawkins serves a purpose, Brooks is a useless vessel.

The Brooks and Frums of the world realize that Nov 17 is their D-Day. No one took them seriously before, and they are about to fall even further in people’s esteem. That’s what happens when they get to run their perfect candidate and he gets smacked down by a fraudulent Chicago rookie.

You are not a leader, David Brooks, and no one will be following. Your arguments aren’t compelling, they never were. Such is the fate of the pseudo-intellects and Vichy France RINOs.

Do not fear though, David. As you and your employer concurrently fall into greater irrelevance, Douthat and the rest will be there to break your fall. And you will always have the boots beneath the well-pressed slacks of The One to lick.

PFV@CNM

PhoenixUniversal on October 3, 2009 at 6:04 AM

the_nile on October 3, 2009 at 5:46 AM

Yes, I posted my humble apology.

jarhead0311 on October 3, 2009 at 6:06 AM

Slam dunk commentary Allahpundit.

El Guapo on October 3, 2009 at 6:09 AM

None of these people speak for everyone, but I do think Rush speaks for a lot more people than Brooks does. That is obvious.

I don’t think Republicans just lost an election because they broke trust with conservatives, unless we are too assume that those conservatives voted for Obama or stayed home and let him win.

I think a desire for change, a desire to be part of something historic, corruption among Republicans in Congress and worry over the economy lost them the election. There were other things going on of course, but in the end..I think it was the meltdown.

Terrye on October 3, 2009 at 6:59 AM

Maybe his tone towards Sarah Palin will be reduced a little now….nah, he’ll be back with more.

yoda on October 3, 2009 at 7:28 AM

It’s cute to see a lecture on “real conservatives” peddled from the outhouse of the Times where they keep their puppet Republican.

Lehosh on October 3, 2009 at 7:28 AM

yoda on October 3, 2009 at 7:28 AM

Wrong thread.

yoda on October 3, 2009 at 7:29 AM

Brooks’ politics is slightly to the right of Joe Stalin. That makes him the NY Times’ “conservative” pundit.

Bevan on October 3, 2009 at 7:41 AM

Got to also give another thumbs up for “Connections”. That was the first time I ever saw anybody point much of the story of Galileo vs. Church is a myth. (It funny how so many people leave out the part about G being buddies with the pope.)

Dave_d on October 3, 2009 at 7:52 AM

The left SOOoooo wishes that they had a Rush Limbaugh.
They don’t.~~~Mojave Mark on October 3, 2009 at 2:00 AM

The right wishes they had a SNL. They don’t.

How’s Sarah gonna get any respect with Tina always nipping at her buns?

Believable, comedic, satire is a powerful weapon… youngsters and independents are vulnerable.

Geezer on October 3, 2009 at 8:14 AM

Touché, Jeri!

“Brooks Birdcaged,” by Jeri Thompson, American Spectator, 10/2/09

…Brooks can be found on PBS doing his best imitation of David Gergen.

It may be that Rush or Mark Levin, or now Fred, for that matter, endorse or encourage support for a particular cause, but conservatives, particularly grassroots conservatives, are independent thinkers. They do not simply walk in lock step with their radio overlords, unlike pundits in Washington who enjoy getting a call from the Obama White House and touting The One at every turn.

[emphasis added]

N.B., Gergen-Brooks elitist geeks stroke Beck to diss Rush.

maverick muse on October 3, 2009 at 8:34 AM

Brooks thinks in a lib elitist bubble. He’d be more interesting if he went back with his brother to selling suits.

petefrt on October 3, 2009 at 8:38 AM

Hey, Brooksie: If talk radio has no impact on elections, why did Dear Leader hire Chavez lovin’ “diversity czar” Mark Lloyd to try and shut it down?

B.T.W., Brooksie, Obama does not dress well so even your embarrassing analysis of the crease of his pants was a failure.

Buy Danish on October 3, 2009 at 8:45 AM

Sigh. If only Brooks would bring his apparently enormous influence to bear against the left rather than righty media guys we’d sweep those guys out of office with ease. Who are your heros, David?

Seriously, all I really need to know about Brooks come from the “I divide people into people who talk like us and who don’t talk like us” line. By commiting that sentence to print he undermined his credibility – permanently.

mugged on October 3, 2009 at 8:48 AM

The right wishes they had a SNL. They don’t.

Geezer on October 3, 2009 at 8:14 AM

Maybe. Maybe not.

The right has what it wants, talk radio that includes Beck who provides the relief valve via humor.

The right does not covet the corruption of the left. The right does not wish for another SNL more boring than not format. The right can still read; the right isn’t completely addicted to late night television. The right prefers a good movie to slapstick rehash vaudeville recast reruns. Nor does the right long for an empty suit in the Oval Office emperor without clothes messianic jetset potus who is missing the goods, carrying on corruption baggage.

Why would the right settle for the left’s Taco Bell menu when we have Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse menu at home? No trading talk radio for SNL, Geezer.

maverick muse on October 3, 2009 at 8:52 AM

Seriously, all I really need to know about Brooks come from the “I divide people into people who talk like us and who don’t talk like us” line. By commiting that sentence to print he undermined his credibility – permanently.

mugged on October 3, 2009 at 8:48 AM

Brooks further discredits himself for having condemned Bush for observing the stand from Matthew 12:30; either you’re with America or against us.

maverick muse on October 3, 2009 at 8:56 AM

jarhead0311 on October 3, 2009 at 5:38 AM

Don’t feel lonely, someone makes a similar error almost every QOTD. AP never adds insight to those, they stand or fall on their own.

Cindy Munford on October 3, 2009 at 9:02 AM

The right wishes they had a SNL. They don’t.

Geezer on October 3, 2009 at 8:14 AM

SNL? Seriously?? SNL might get some good ratings, from time to time but truthfully, I think they live more off of their name than they do off of their talent. I watched them a lot in college, they used to actually be funny. Consistently funny and they all had great talent! Now they are just political and once in a great while one of them stumbles into something funny. It’s sad,, but they really are just living off of what other great comedians have built.

JellyToast on October 3, 2009 at 9:51 AM

“Why would the right settle for the left’s Taco Bell menu when we have Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse menu at home? No trading talk radio for SNL, Geezer.~~~maverick muse on October 3, 2009 at 8:52 AM

mm…We both know national elections aren’t won by appealing just to the “wingers” or the “nutroots”. The deciding factor is made up of centrist, moderates and independents.

To Rush’s chagrin, I might add…rabid, demeaning partisanship does not universally appeal to many folks in these groups.

You gotta keep the “whole game” concept in mind; yah gotta play all four quarters. To do that you have to utilize some players that aren’t necessarily all on your first team…!

Geezer on October 3, 2009 at 9:56 AM

Even after 21 years of Rush, Brooks et al, still do not understand. Rush informs and entertains while keeping everyone’s attention. He validates our thoughts. We hear comments from others who we agree or disagree with. Brooks spoon feeds us his opinion and thinks we should agree with him. Must be lonely on that mountain top.

Kissmygrits on October 3, 2009 at 10:01 AM

Not that I ever expect Rush to be consistent, but I caught a show where he actually was saying exactly the same thing as Brooks. He pointed out that he didn’t have power, although the left was claiming that. If that were the case, Obama would have lost the election.

So Brooks’ point was correct.

I personally do not believe that people are stupid or sheep. They make up their own mind on most important topics. They vote according to a kind of inner sense of whom they trust as well as what their own priorities are.

That’s why polling never quite gets to the truth of the matter, either. It’s too heavy-handed of a tool to measure people’s true attitudes.

“Shock” jocks are shock jocks. Everyone knows the schtick. Those who like that tune in. Those who find those types lacking real credibility don’t tune in.

I liked Imus’s remark about Beck, since it comes from experience. “This won’t end well.” *haha

AnninCA on October 3, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Brooks spoon feeds us his opinion and thinks we should agree with him. Must be lonely on that mountain top.

Kissmygrits on October 3, 2009 at 10:01 AM

Well, he’s a commentator, so he’s in the same realm as Rush. And the same standard applies. He articulates often what many moderate conservatives are thinking.

Same thing.

AnninCA on October 3, 2009 at 10:24 AM

“Now they are just political and once in a great while one of them stumbles into something funny…”~~~JellyToast on October 3, 2009 at 9:51 AM

“Funny”; is conceptually held in the mind’s eye of the beholder. What is “funny” to a partisan maybe very boorish and distasteful to an uncommitted dude.

Geezer on October 3, 2009 at 10:24 AM

David who? I never heard of him. Based on the quote above, I can see why.

dogsoldier on October 3, 2009 at 10:39 AM

“The right has what it wants, talk radio that includes Beck who provides the relief valve via humor. ~~~maverick muse on October 3, 2009 at 8:52 AM

I suppose it’s cynically humorous; even if you’re being laughed at, rather than laughed with…?

Geezer on October 3, 2009 at 10:40 AM

Wow, Brooks is really delusional.

Midas on October 3, 2009 at 10:52 AM

jarhead0311 on October 3, 2009 at 5:38 AM
Don’t feel lonely, someone makes a similar error almost every QOTD. AP never adds insight to those, they stand or fall on their own.

Cindy Munford on October 3, 2009

Just remember, jarhead0311, the QOTD is only posted by AP, not written by him. There will alsways be a link to the actual writer. Learned this the hard way myself.

SKYFOX on October 3, 2009 at 11:08 AM

James Burke’s Connections was and is a masterpiece of work. Likewise his The Day The Universe Changed, plus Connections II and III, and his books on The Pinball Effect of History… currently he is examining how hyperlinking infrastructure is making possible a new way of thinking and approaching ideas and how we live our lives. If you understand Connections, then you have one of the quintessential analysis tools for how any two things are connected and why those connections influence how you think the way you do.

I would put his work up there with that of Moore’s Law and Metcalf’s Law, both necessary cornerstones for understanding technology and how people connect on networks and how they influence each other. Yet both of those pre-Connections views are fully encompassed by Connections and the later work of Burke. The fact that there is no ‘right way’ to view the universe does not mean you can’t adapt from multiple ways to find a ‘better way’ to view it and think about it, and when you do that you open up a vista of follow-ons for all of those who can build upon that view. Something as simple as learning that light was not a single color but a spectrum broke scientific inquiry wide open, and yet has fall out to how we color things and finding out just what color is. Just as in Connections where the simple blackout with you in an elevator brings home the fact that the elevator, without power, is a metal box with buttons on the inside. If the power has gone off for good (say an EMP attack but other sources at that time) then just what do you do? Where do you end up and how do you survive? Thrown out of modern technology you are now back 4,000 years in technology… if you must start over, where do you start?

That line of inquiry has had subtle effects on everything from the Green Movement to Survivalists, and radically alters our relationship to technology because it is based upon us, as humans. And yet, for those influences, that does not mean that any influenced line of thought is ‘true’ or even ‘good’, just striving to be ‘better’ and facing the test of time to see if it gets anywhere. This is true in politics, technology, religion, and everything we do in life as humans: nothing is immune to the connected influences and their results. It replaces the simplistic views with a simple one: complexity comes from simplicity and complex attempts to address complex issues fail, more often than not, because they do not address underlying simplicity.

That message rings stronger, clearer, over time, with every passing day as we see those seeking complex solutions failing in government, technology, indeed, everywhere. They are trying to change the basis for simple human relationships, and that simple fact of us being human is timeless and self-evident. Attempting to change it is costly and rife with folly, and has many fallouts beyond the simple… he goes through history with that view and connects up the simple things that matter and you get resultant complexity. Without James Burke we would be poorer as a culture, and many refuse to see the underlying simplicity in all of life while it is plain to see each and every day you live. I will live with connected simplicity because that is what we make, as humans, as it gives us richness as individuals to be so connected to the rest of humanity. And still individual.

ajacksonian on October 3, 2009 at 11:08 AM

Brooks proves that ego is the the enemy.

Speakup on October 3, 2009 at 11:18 AM

What’s odd to me?

Brooks is in the same business. Whose he kidding?

AnninCA on October 3, 2009 at 11:20 AM

RUSH, BECK, SEAN, LEVIN, HOROWITZ, FRED, MALKIN, COULTER, BRUCE, GELLAR, and even Alan Keyes

…. are the people I fully trust.

Heritage and Ayn Rand are the organizations that I fully trust.

TheAlamos on October 3, 2009 at 1:21 AM

Do not forget Laura Ingraham.

Johan Klaus on October 3, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Who reads the New York Times anymore anyway? The Times is a dinosaur and die a quick death. Rush, Sean and Beck are the voice of the populous where the elite like it or not! Conservatives are on the rise again and the more people see of Obama, the more their stock goes up.

flytier on October 3, 2009 at 11:32 AM

moderate conservatives
AnninCA on October 3, 2009 at 10:24 AM

An oxymoron.

Johan Klaus on October 3, 2009 at 11:33 AM

Johan Klaus on October 3, 2009 at 11:33 AM

As is evangelical Democrat

flytier on October 3, 2009 at 11:35 AM

I suppose it’s cynically humorous; even if you’re being laughed at, rather than laughed with…?

Geezer on October 3, 2009 at 10:40 AM

Letterman, eh?

Johan Klaus on October 3, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Gee, that sounds a lot like what the Left did to Joe The Plumber: disparage the questioner. Is that the best Rush can do for an answer? I’m disappointed.

Socratease on October 3, 2009 at 1:16 AM

No. That is one of the things he said. Limbaugh’s show is a continuous refutation of David Brooks, et al. And not by name calling, by refutation of Brook’s weather vane sense of Truth. You need not be disappointed in Limbaugh, you should just listen a few times.

applebutter on October 3, 2009 at 11:51 AM

Letterman, eh?

Johan Klaus on October 3, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Oh, and let’s not forget SNL fabulous Franken funny boy, err, I mean Congressman Franken…

hahahah, it took ACORN to cheat this guy into a seat, what a world.

OkieDoc on October 3, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Stewart Small goes to Washington, OMG, Minnesota. What were you thinkin?

OkieDoc on October 3, 2009 at 12:04 PM

I care not about the power of a Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck. (I care about the truths or untruths) they utter, and their right to be free to utter them, unrestricted by threats from political powers. If we lose that, we are done. There is no dictaroship in history that could afford the luxury of tolerating a loud opposition communicating their follies, as we see in Venenzuela, today, and in what appears to be Obama’s controlled America tommorrow.

Don L on October 3, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Actually Limbaugh uses Brooks as an equal opportunity, ambidextrous player. Luvs to quote him when he’s “right” despises him when he’s only moderately left.

Gotta luv that tight buns, Rush!

Geezer on October 3, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Just to clarify, how does one use another as a ‘player”?

applebutter on October 3, 2009 at 2:33 PM

Heh. Brooks is a pathetic, lying douche nozzle, but he can say whatever he wants. We just get to laugh at his pansy, effeminate, liberal ass.

Jaibones on October 3, 2009 at 3:46 PM

Allah: Some of your stuff is starting to get boring. You know that these guys do make a difference and in a big way.

New Patriot on October 3, 2009 at 4:03 PM

You know the hottest thing about Jeri Thompson?

Her mind.

pabarge on October 3, 2009 at 5:31 PM

Babbling brooks are a soothing sound that relaxes and refreshes the mind.

But when David Brooks speaks, the listener has a sense of fear and loathing.

MSGTAS on October 4, 2009 at 9:56 AM

Comment pages: 1 2