Seriously, this is getting dumb. I mean I really don’t have time to spend every day dealing with all this stupidity. I used to figure that we got along pretty darn fine if there was five stupid to every ninety-five normally intelligent people.
I’m beginning to be shocked that humanity can evolve at all, given that I think the ratio is nearly 45 to 55 by now. How does the planet survive this heavy weight of just god-awful stupid?
Case in point.
Now David Brooks is not stupid all the time. He has fits and starts of actual intelligence that float to the surface of his cerebellum now and again. Which is the down side of the scale of brains, since the upside is having the stupid float to the surface now and them, and the intelligence being the norm.
Anyway, the stupid Brooks did one of his pieces in the NYTimes, and had a few things to say about gays and the marriage issue. Brooks decided that by requesting the SCOTUS to recognize the absolute right of gay folks to marry like anyone else, they were taking a step backward when it comes to freedom.
What you say?
Yes, after scrambling his brain sells with a bit of spinach and a wad of chewing gum, David determines that since marriage is giving up freedom, well, gays made a serious mistake. They have given up their hedonism for the restrictions of marriage–you know, obligations and commitments. In the same breath he then reminds us that unfettered freedom leads to utter decay and licentiousness the likes not seen since the bawdy days of Caligula’s Rome.
Marriage is one of those institutions — along with religion and military service — that restricts freedom. Marriage is about making a commitment that binds you for decades to come. It narrows your options on how you will spend your time, money and attention.
Whether they understood it or not, the gays and lesbians represented at the court committed themselves to a certain agenda. They committed themselves to an institution that involves surrendering autonomy. They committed themselves to the idea that these self-restrictions should be reinforced by the state. They committed themselves to the idea that lifestyle choices are not just private affairs but work better when they are embedded in law.
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites. … Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” (Edmund Burke).
If one gets past the utter condescension toward the gay community and “perhaps you really haven’t thought this through,” mentality, you get the distinct notion that Brooks is more about having come up with an interesting counterpoint rather than having a clear message here.
Yes David, you made a lovely poopoo, now flush the toilet and get to your nap. Brooks seems to be riding the fence in the best tradition of the conservative movement. By the by, Matt Taibbi has a great take down on Brook’s post, here at Rolling Stone.
I’m pretty sure that if you are having trouble dribbling the toothpaste out of the tube in the morning, it’s probably one of your “off” days in terms of being intelligent and smart. Take my advice–eat ice cream and watch cartoons until your intellect kicks in again. Please don’t bore us with stupid.