Meet The Press Hosts Panel of Dicks To Discuss Presidential Low-T

image

David Brooks must be pining for his lost youth now that he’s a newly-single balding, middle-aged guy tending toward paunch.  That’s the only good explanation for the sophomoric little round-robin that took place on Meet the Press yesterday, during which Brooks questioned President Obama’s testosterone levels, while the rest of the bobbleheads nodded and grinned:

Basically since Yalta we’ve had an assumption that borders are basically going to be borders, and once that comes into question, if in Ukraine or in Crimea or anywhere else, then all over the world … all bets are off . . .

… And let’s face it, Obama, whether deservedly or not, does have a — I’ll say it crudely — but a manhood problem in the Middle East. Is he tough enough to stand up to somebody like Assad or somebody like Putin? I think a lot of the rap is unfair, but certainly in the Middle East there is an assumption that he’s not tough enough.

How insipid is that?  Let me count the ways . . .

I won’t spend much time on the numerous geopolitical fallacies encapsulated there. Juan Cole is far better qualified to do that and has already done a masterful dissection of those:

Brooks exemplifies the problem with US foreign policy, which is that the inside-the-beltway chickenhawks with small peckers equate military aggression with “manhood.”

The post-Yalta assumption that ‘borders are going to be borders’ of which Brooks says he approves was violated by Israel, which is illegally annexing the Palestinian West bank. But that violation of international law doesn’t bother Brooks in the least, though it causes the US among its biggest diplomatic headaches in the Muslim world. Shouldn’t he be complaining that Obama hasn’t properly stood up to the Likud Party?

You know who had a “manhood” problem? George W. Bush. He acted childishly, wantonly invading Iraq without a shred of international legality, because Saddam “tried to kill my daddy.” He even adopted the diction of a 4-year-old as he initiated the mass slaughter of several hundred thousand people and the displacement of millions. You see, the opposite of “manly” is not, as Brooks imagines, “cautious.” It is childish petulance.

[Take a bow, Mr Cole.]

I’d rather dwell on Brooks’ lack of intellectual rigor and smug [unwarranted] condescension. 

Let’s just take this bit, for example:

… And let’s face it, Obama, whether deservedly or not, does have a — I’ll say it crudely — but a manhood problem in the Middle East.

Clearly, Obama’s “problem” is a foregone conclusion that we should all “face” . . . because David Brooks says so?  And we should all “face it” “whether [it’s] deservedly or not?”

By the same token, I guess we should all “face the fact” that Barack Obama is a foreign born, Muslim, New World Order Socialist, whether it’s “deservedly or not,” because a whole lot of ignorant Americans believe that?

Also, Mr Brooks, why exactly was it necessary to go with crudity when you have all of those other refinements available in your intellectual-elite toolbox?

Is it perhaps that “wagging willies” appeals to your inner frat boy? or maybe it just tickles you to drop the Upper East Side stick up your ass and get earthy with the guys, occasionally?

Or maybe you’re just a sad, insecure little man who spent his career talking down to the “lower tribes” about the virtues of the “upper tribes” and damned if there isn’t some uppity boy from the “lower tribe” running things that you, Mr Brooks, would be oh so much better at?

Weren’t you, after all, thinking of yourself when you said this?

I’d say today’s meritocratic elites achieve and preserve their status not mainly by being corrupt but mainly by being ambitious and disciplined. They raise their kids in organized families. They spend enormous amounts of money and time on enrichment. They work much longer hours than people down the income scale, driving their kids to piano lessons and then taking part in conference calls from the waiting room.

Bollocks, Mr Brooks!  I think I hear yo mama callin’. 

Posted by Bette Noir on 04/21/14 at 08:19 AM • Permalink

Categories: PoliticsBarack ObamaBedwettersOur Stupid Media

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via del.icio.us   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

Brooksie is slipping; that little screed is such an obvious case of projection that his inbox should soon be filled with every ED drug ad ever created.

First off, there’s nothing “manly” about putting other people’s lives at risk.

Secondly, and more important, by positing “manliness” (whatever that even means) as an inherently positive trait, he is denigrating femininity (whatever that means).  The whole construct is sexist.

Secondly, and more important, by positing “manliness” (whatever that even means) as an inherently positive trait, he is denigrating femininity (whatever that means).

From time to time, you’ll get some commentator rambling on about how American society overvalues what they call “feminine” virtues. I’ve deduced that this refers to such things as cooperation and compassion, because men don’t work together, apparently. Nope, we need more of those “masculine” virtues, like competition and aggressiveness. You put a bunch of men in a room, and they bash each other over the head until only one remains standing to order the rest around - like it should be. This crap even seeps into other aspects of society. I don’t know if they do this anymore, but they used to have these experimental grade schools with gender segregated classrooms. The girl’s classroom looked like a classroom, whereas the boy’s classroom looked like the yard at Sing Sing.

It’s all based around some belief that there’s some hard delineation between men’s and women’s character traits. Every time I hear about it, I flash back to the late Prof. Johnson’s lectures about early dynastic China, where a trait considered a virtue in a man would be considered a horrible flaw in a woman, and vice versa. Seriously guys, how fucking retrograde are we trying to be here? Damn.

Dear lil’ Davey,

I trust your definitions and descriptions of ‘masculine’ traits implicitly. The verve with which you write, the aggressive way you sit at the panel, staring down the camera: This is what I live for, how I want to be, imposing my will upon the people by being imposingish with my will-type thingie.

Now, I know that you are not a veteran, for although you would have been eligible for front line service during the period of that hellhole we refer to as ‘Grenada’, when former veteran of many wartime STD films, and president of the United States, Ronald Reagan, had to be stopped from tearing the IVs out of his arm, eluding his Secret Service detail, and charging into the fray of the film “Chlamydia And You” after hearing about the Battle of Senor Frog’s East, where so many men received Purple Heart-winning hangovers, there are wartime rules against the deployment of the sort of seething aggression you wrestle with, barely keeping in check. Lord, your trash bin overflows with rejected paragraphs, inapt similes, savagely culled from your written herd. Beast.

You are not unlike Putin, forever tangling with the many Palin family members waiting for his head to arise, like a great, pumpkin, over Alaska. Everyday we do not rip our televisions and radios off of their stands, hurling them out of our windows, and march, with no weapons but the bloodcurdling name, David, on our lips, towards Syria, or the Ukraine, even towards a Ranger-Celtic match, to inflict peace upon those too savage to internally govern without our express guidance, we are a lesser people. Lambs to slaughter. Our choice in political leader, some black guy, making manifest our lack of will.

Please David, forgive us.

@paleotectonics - bravo!!

And of course, this took place on the beleagured MTP—which is seeking professional help. And may require advanced definitions for “professional” and “help”.

First off, there’s nothing “manly” about putting other people’s lives at risk.

Secondly, and more important, by positing “manliness” (whatever that even means) as an inherently positive trait, he is denigrating femininity (whatever that means).  The whole construct is sexist.

Indeed it is sexist, to a ridiculous degree, and yet this is how the village media see/frame every damned thing.  Fox even gets its female newsreaders to adopt “masculine” traits, like expressing a desire to piss on those they don’t agree with; how bar room beers & feedcaps is that?

Comparing Russia and the Ukraine to Israel and the Palestinian West bank - brilliant, and so apt.  So what’s it going to be BoBo?  Whose borders are scared now?

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

Next entry: Burning Man Walking

Previous entry: The Chocolate War

<< Back to main