I find Brooks to be a shallow, self-aggrandizing bootlicker of the first order. Clueless as an Ayn Rand reader, culpable as a clergyman, and haughty as a wealthy heir.
HERE he is, the other week, weighing in on the Snowden leak.
It is difficult to deny that Snowden’s act was less about principle and more about getting famous, and he seems to be a narcissist of the first order. Brooks, on the other hand, has a long, despicable record of admonishing the lesser citizens to obey their masters. That is where he’s coming from here. Not about privacy, autonomy or loyalty to self, family or country. He gives the game away when he states Snowden’s act will limit debate. It will –and already has done– the opposite. The very debate that should have been occurring 12 years ago when the majority of the country was pissing its pants after 9/11, willing to let anything and everything be done, in our names, to protect ourselves. If Obama, for instance, had come out a week or a year ago and tried to get us to talk about this, the very Republican ass-clowns who are opportunistically condemning him would have predictably –and cravenly– accused him of being “soft on terror”. Snowden being a d-bag is not the story; the story is that someone lifted the rock up and let us see the ugliness underneath. And now we can talk about what we can/won’t tolerate and who can/should be held accountable.
Now let’s see if we can have that discussion, and edge ourselves back toward the side of sanity.
I’m not holding my breath.
