Lauren Collins on UK rag, The Daily Mail. Collins is such a fun writer. She could make an article about bags of poo interesting. Unfortunately, that one is behind the paywall.
Andrew Sullivan's readers write in about football's concussion crisis. This one is great. Also on the Dish, the man himself has a very good post titled, "Jesus and Sex." Toward the end of the post, which is largely about forgiveness, Sullivan acknowledges his own failings and quite eloquently concludes, "I am unworthy to deliver such a message. But if no broken being can speak to the truths he cannot always live up to and has often strayed from, then we would have a great deal of silence." It's nice seeing Andrew, as his fans call him, resort to blunt modesty like that.
Ta-Nehisi Coates offers a devastating rebuke to Juan Williams.
David Brooks is my homeboy. A lot of people dis him because he veers off into psychology, (pop or otherwise), rather than constantly rebuking his fellow travelers on the right. I am fine with him writing about what he feels like because: first of all, I don't need yet more commentary to convince me the GOP is intellectually bankrupt; and secondly, unlike snobs who live in think-tanks, I don't read psychology journals all day and don't care if he is dumbing it down for me.* But anyway, I appreciate his efforts, along with his NYT colleague Ross Douthat, to remind people that not everyone on the right is insane, cynical, stupid, or some dangerous combination of the three. Here are three recent articles by him I dug.
And with that, I offer a toast: to a vibrant Media Filter in the coming weeks, months, and yea, centuries, throughout which DennisOToole.com will entertain and instruct all who need it most.
*Note a day later: this is an infelicitous phrase in a run-on sentence, but you know what I mean. There are two connotations for "to dumb it down." One is "to make the complex accessible;" the other is "to dilute original, intelligently crafted research while insulting the intelligence of the audience." Clearly I mean the former. But, since Brooks is accused of the latter, I am making the distinction. As for the snobs in think-tanks line, that alludes to one very harsh critique I saw of Brooks's forays into psychology. Don't feel like linking to it. Trust me. It exists.
Andrew Sullivan's readers write in about football's concussion crisis. This one is great. Also on the Dish, the man himself has a very good post titled, "Jesus and Sex." Toward the end of the post, which is largely about forgiveness, Sullivan acknowledges his own failings and quite eloquently concludes, "I am unworthy to deliver such a message. But if no broken being can speak to the truths he cannot always live up to and has often strayed from, then we would have a great deal of silence." It's nice seeing Andrew, as his fans call him, resort to blunt modesty like that.
Ta-Nehisi Coates offers a devastating rebuke to Juan Williams.
David Brooks is my homeboy. A lot of people dis him because he veers off into psychology, (pop or otherwise), rather than constantly rebuking his fellow travelers on the right. I am fine with him writing about what he feels like because: first of all, I don't need yet more commentary to convince me the GOP is intellectually bankrupt; and secondly, unlike snobs who live in think-tanks, I don't read psychology journals all day and don't care if he is dumbing it down for me.* But anyway, I appreciate his efforts, along with his NYT colleague Ross Douthat, to remind people that not everyone on the right is insane, cynical, stupid, or some dangerous combination of the three. Here are three recent articles by him I dug.
And with that, I offer a toast: to a vibrant Media Filter in the coming weeks, months, and yea, centuries, throughout which DennisOToole.com will entertain and instruct all who need it most.
*Note a day later: this is an infelicitous phrase in a run-on sentence, but you know what I mean. There are two connotations for "to dumb it down." One is "to make the complex accessible;" the other is "to dilute original, intelligently crafted research while insulting the intelligence of the audience." Clearly I mean the former. But, since Brooks is accused of the latter, I am making the distinction. As for the snobs in think-tanks line, that alludes to one very harsh critique I saw of Brooks's forays into psychology. Don't feel like linking to it. Trust me. It exists.
RSS Feed