coming back for some more

We've been at the bar all day but around 3pm one of us finally made it to the op-ed section of the New York Times. Now, it should be mentioned that not all of the staff read the New York Times, it's just that it comes with the Volvo, so those of us who drive around in those safe-havens of liberal whateverness seem to always have NYTimes handy.

Let's just say that what we saw on the op-ed page did not shock us. It did not awe us. It did not even appal us. But, it did it did give us gastrointestinal trouble.

Fucking David Brooks! Will he ever try to perhaps change up the style of his articles? Christ! (Much thought was put into whether to actually write "Christ" or not. Some of the practicing(?) Christians among us don't really like the expression, but, in the end, they agreed that the expression can convey a unique emotion.) How long can he go on with the "there are two sides to every issue" thing? He's like a musician who keeps using the same three cords in all of his songs but just changes the lyrics around while the structure is always the same.

We've written about this before.
But, his article today did make us finally leave the bar and get to work, so we guess Mr. Brooks is good for something.

Here's the kicker from Brooks's article today:

The Bolton controversy isn't about whether we believe in the U.N. mission. It's about which U.N. mission we believe in.

From the start, the U.N. has had two rival missions. Some people saw it as a place where sovereign nations could work together to solve problems. But other people saw it as the beginnings of a world government.



It doesn't even matter what he writes anymore, we just can't read it with any seriousness after our eyes pass over the obligatory dichotomy.