Brooks vs. Friedman - whose flaccid gee-whiz prose makes you queasier?

[swag]

The flat-earther (or as others have called him, "The Global Village Idiot of Laissez-Fairy Land")



vs., well, gee-whiz, David Brooks



THE BATTLE OF THE BIGGIES! WHO SHALL CONQUER!

[Bob3]

1. Friedman by far

Brooks is just another RW shill who has trouble with the English language. Mr. Friedman is one of those self blaming 'liberal' writers who somehow ends up endorsing most of *'s policies (with some faint reservations). If one remembers he was fond of calling the invasion of Iraq the equivalent of the Normandy invasion in the war on terror, when a more apt historical parallel was the Soviet Union's attack in Finland in 1940.

[swag]

5. Nice post, Bob

I'm with you on this, though I find them both loathsome.

I confess that I was suckered by all of the optimistic stories in "The Lexus and the Olive Tree," but a few happy anecdotes about impoverished villagers renting cell-phones to one another do not spell many happy returns, nor does an industrialist's environmental theme park in the middle of a decimated rain forest.

Brooks we know is a fucking idiot. Friedman is a "liberal" that Wall Streeters love.

[oasis]

2. At least Brooks is aware that he's full of shit. Friedman hasn't a clue.

[KlatooBNikto]

3. The best way to understand them is to recognize that they are both

propagandists for the status quo.They will evade the truth,ignore the obvious,demonize the powerless and exalt the powerful if that will gain them "access".Their moral bankruptcy is what makes their written words worthless.

[bryant69]

4. Brooks is much worse

Brook's basically buys into the "Liberals aren't real Americans" and uses his myopic prose to push this poisonous idea at every turn.

Friedman does do good work on occasion, and I have some sympathy for his position on the Iraq war because it was largely my position as well (although events have proven me wrong).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com