What follows is a comment I posted to a blog post on the Rolling Stone ("Same-Sex Marriage Makes David Brooks Crazy") written by Matt Taibbi, dated April 2. I guess that would be April 2 of this year? The site doesn't tell us. I'm guessing that this comment won't be approved.
"Instead of going into hysterics over Mr. Brooks alleged advocacy of homophobia, let's take a look at what the man actually said
"And far from being baffled by this attempt to use state power to restrict individual choice, most Americans seem to be applauding it. Once, gay culture was erroneously associated with bathhouses and nightclubs. Now, the gay and lesbian rights movement is associated with marriage and military service. Once the movement was associated with self-sacrifice, it was bound to become popular.
...
The proponents of same-sex marriage used the language of equality and rights in promoting their cause, because that is the language we have floating around. But, if it wins, same-sex marriage will be a victory for the good life, which is about living in a society that induces you to narrow your choices and embrace your obligations."
There is no other rational way in which to read this: Brooks hopes that same sex marriage will succeed, because more people would end up living nobler lives in the wake of such a success. One would hardly guess that he had offer such support, after reading Taibbi's response, would one? Of this piece, Taibbi writes
"It's just weird, confused, old-person bitterness, mixed in with the usual obnoxious conservative delusions"
Reality check, Matt: You're 43. David Brooks is 51. That's the age difference one would associate with a pair of brothers, not with a parent and child. If the time has come for Brooks to purchase a walker, then I can only hope that you've been stocking up on the depends. What Brooks speaks of used to be known as "growing up", and as you are now in middle age, yourself (or at least close to it), how very sad it is that you have a problem with that."
What I'm still trying to process is the fact that Taibbi is being paid to produce work like this as a professional writer. This implies that people are, in fact, paying to buy hard copy magazines with writing of the caliber that this man is capable of. I can't help but wonder why they are doing so, when work of similar character and quality can be read for free, in the middle of almost any Internet forum flame war. Taibbi plays the usual online game of responding, not to what Brooks has written, but to a flight of fancy he has had regarding the substance of Brook's remarks. To give such credit as is due, the proofreading was fine, and Taibbi did refrain from the use of profanity, but these are about the only differences to be found.
Am I in the wrong line of work? Pay me over $30,000 per year, or whatever Taibbi is making, and I'll be happy to use a spellchecker. Really. As for the lack of profanity, the person who really deserves the credit for that is the seemingly unfailingly polite Mr. Brooks, who at this point would have ample provocation to resort to a little of it.
