The ever miopic Brooks

David Brooks is at it again. He has been writting these crazily philosophic olumns since Bush won the White House.

Before Brooks was like other wonks, writting and arguing, analyzing the news. Much like Saffire did, (good riddance you won't be missed ). Hey at least Saffire knew a little bit about what he was talking about although he constantly spewed lies.

Brooks has obviously been brain washed by Bush. He has become a follower of some philosophical mindset that the BUsh the Messiah has implanted in the minds of so many.

As if he gets it and the rest of us are just blindly going through life. As if we are dumb, and he is wise.

Well I am not gonna pull out my carpet and pray three times a day just yet.

Brooks' column today is another example of some philosophocal Bull Shit that comes right around and bites him in the ass with the least of analysis.

I will take just one of the quotes that seems to sum up his point today:

At the top end of society we have a mass upper-middle class. This is made up of highly educated people who move into highly educated neighborhoods and raise their kids in good schools with the children of other highly educated parents. These kids develop wonderful skills, get into good colleges (the median family income of a Harvard student is now $150,000), then go out and have their own children, who develop the same sorts of wonderful skills and who repeat the cycle all over again.

In this way these highly educated elites produce a paradox - a hereditary meritocratic class.

...

In his State of the Union address, President Bush is no doubt going to talk about his vision of an ownership society.

...

The larger story is the one Lincoln defined over a century ago, the idea that this nation should provide an open field and a fair chance so that all can compete in the race of life.

Today that's again under threat, but this time from barriers that are different than the ones defined by socialists in the industrial age. Now, the upper class doesn't so much oppress the lower class. It just outperforms it generation after generation. Now the crucial inequality is not only finance capital, it's social capital. Now it is silly to make a distinction between economic policy and social policy.

Not that I don't think you don't know where I am going with this.

But first of all the paradox of hereditary meritocracy has been proven to exist albet as more of a hereditocracy (there is no merit involved) a long time ago. How many people in DC are there that came from the places where "more boys go to jail than to college."

The Bush family are a prime example of how a hereditocracy has been accomplished in this country.

In fact the "open field and fair chance" are what us looney liberals have been screaming about since the beginning of time. If it weren't for the "upper class oppressing the lower class" with their economic and foreign (for this decades generation) policies, they wouldn't be outperforming the lower classes.

SO Mr. Brooks, is it still "silly to make a distinction between economic and social policy."

In fact Brooks, if you are getting into philosophizing on the pages of the NYT, I suggest you read history you will find your version of philosophy does not seem to be fitting in.

ESPECIALLY IN RECENT HISTORY.