I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
IF you're white, it's alright...
What? You expect journalism from a journalist? Original thoughts from an editorialist?
Uh, any chance that "accusation" was joke? I thought my sarcasmasteric detector gave me a bit of a signal. Maybe it's on the blink.
I don't get it...
OT: anyone know what's going on with Pandagon? Have they been DOSed?
In an earlier thread, Jesse said he was switching hosts.
I believe Brooksie also used the words the and, or and can as well. (I think it was a put-on)
plagiarism laws doesn't really kick in with that short phasing Brooks used.
This is a joke. Come on. Two sentence fragments don't constitute plagiarism.
I don't think it qualifies as plagiarism, but it's sloppy, as I said.
Somebody's bullshit detector is on the fritz today.
"plagiarism laws"?
Brooks was googling around for information to support his Kerry article, and lazily snipped a couple of phrases. Just sloppy.
Brooks is just pathetic. He must have had this ready in the wings, and no doubt has a hit piece ready for Edwards, Clark, Dean (the comeback), and the not a chancers like Lieberman, Sharpton, and Kucinich.
This really seems nitpicklery to me.
Brooks copied or may have copied a very generic phrase... no big deal.
I'm not a fan of Brooksy, but I've come to think that he is WILDLY uneven and that some of his columns, or even some ideas in his bad columns, are excellent. His description of Kerry's problem seemed right on the mark to me.
You're not reading enough if you think Brooks has ever written an "excellent" column. Even the not-wacky ones are amateurish at best. Making fairly obvious calls does not qualify as good column writing.
Why does David Brooks seem so reasonable on the NewsHour and yet become such a loyal, flat, reflective surface of the RW echo chamber in his columns?
Though, everybody was a little punchy last night on the NewsHour.
Brooks is a hack. This is what hacks do.
daudder - "Brooks is just pathetic. He must have had this ready in the wings, and no doubt has a hit piece ready for Edwards, Clark, Dean (the comeback"
Bingo. For past month, it has struck me that Brooks is on a mission to undermine the Democratic front runner in his columns. I guess old habits from the Weekly Standard die hard. He slimes Dean & now comes out with a piece basically calling Kerry a do-nothing. Of course for Bush, narie a word on the lies, deceptions, give-a-ways to corporate contributors, mismanagement of the economy, crude remarks. His articles are the height of up is downism.
The substance of the piece is that Kerry talks a good game but does nothing. Pleeeze. Kerry has been a member of the Senate for 20 years. His is only 1 vote out of 100. Maybe Brooks does not understand how the legislative process works in the Senate - you need 51 votes out of a 100, it must pass the House by a majority and the President must sign it. HELLO, IS ANYBODY HOME?
Maybe Brooks does not understand how the legislative process works in the Senate
True point, but of course Brooks understands. This is standard tactic to attack anybody with any sort of a record. Plain distortion. No on can learn, no one thinks. Must be repub. projection.
I'm losing any respect for Brooks. Looks like he is succumuing (spell check?) to the paycheck. He initially struck me as someone with some intellectual self respect.
It's that g*dd*m learning curve again. Next week they'll telling him he can't copy articles from the World Book.
Presumably the student meant it as a joke. Hard to tell. Brooks is a dope but he probably knows how to spell "Massachusetts".
Plagarism or not, it's hackwork. Brooks will do ANYTHING to protect cash register politics as usual because his hand is in the till, too.
And his performance on SnoozeHour last night was terrible. Something IIRC about "Dean's a failure because its obvious that the system works. He had all these peons contributing but not enough of the heavy hitters. Outsiders should stay out of MY BELTWAY!"
Brooks is such an irredeemable hack, it hardly matters what he does or says anymore.
I don't think it's really plagiarism either. He's still a waste of oxygen though. 
I think Brooks is like the journalistic equivalent of Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde. I like many of his articles. I think he's been quite good lately. (haven't read Saturday's article yet) However, he sure does have some Ministry of Truth whoppers as well. I suspect that Mr. Hyde Brooks will make an appearance shortly.
I say give it the Krugman test. If Sully had posted something similar, my defense would probably be that you simply can't write 2 columns a week without this type of "sloppiness" entering into your writing (note: this is exactly the kind of thing that an editor can't catch). I would say that we should focus on the substance of Brooks' (or Krugman's) arguments rather than Atrios Picklering over the writing.
I hate to say it, but this reminds me of nothng more than Instapundit ("Not saying its plagiarism but read the whole thing!")
I actually thought that Saturday's column was pretty damning of Kerry. As was stated above, his columns are just a series of hit pieces on the Dem front runner and defense of W, which really has no place in the Times, but I couldn't readily dismiss his criticisms of Kerry. Given Brooks' propensity for distortion, someone should fact check that column.
>Why does David Brooks seem so reasonable on the NewsHour and yet become such a loyal, flat, reflective surface of the RW echo chamber in his columns?
He acts better than he writes.
He's a fucking pod person, any way you look at it.
"John Kerry Takes On the Teachers Unions" and "in twin speeches in Washington and Massachusetts" are normal enough phrases that this can't be labeled plagiarism.
From Dave's comment's "If you're white, it's alright" we see what a fucking moron Dave is. ZZZZZ, snorebitch.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
