The Art of Presence? More like The Art of Pretense!

Oh Davey, what have you done.

So now you're dabbling in clinical psychology? Even teaching it?

It sounds more like you've read one article somewhere and are now making sweeping generalizations... but what else is new?

Jeffrey Grossman points out:

When faced with tragedy or trauma, I have not wanted "builders" in my life. Nor have I taken comfort in "firefighters," seeking to do their duty. I have a small group of friends, and we will always be present for one another. I don't need or want more than that. But that's just me. Each of us is different.

But more importantly, Dave, as you tell us how to listen to folks (tip: don't talk), did you yourself listen?

Yastreblyansky tells it how it is:

[The original author] on the subject of how to behave toward people who have experienced unspeakable grief and trauma, last week:

• Do not offer platitudes or comparisons. Do not, do not, do not....
• Allow those suffering to tell their own stories.

David Brooks, on the subject of Woodiwiss's recent blog post, today:

• [offers platitudes]
• [tells her story for her]

Well, thanks for listening. Tune in next week for our next exciting review.

The Inequality Problem? More like the David Brooks Problem...

Oh Dave...you've really done it this time.

As a result, the whole internet hates you. And Twitter too.

Dear Poor People: Why aren't you all bank CEOs and hedge fund managers? Why choose to struggle and fail your kids? Love, #GOP #DavidBrooks

— Bill Buster (@ActorBuster) January 17, 2014

First of all, Dave, what are you talking about?

"Suddenly the whole world is talking about income inequality."

Were you standing in an elevator while someone brought this up and you decided you had to go and write an article about it? Have you yourself not been writing articles about income inequality every two years?(Missing the point even back then, you somehow thought that the goals of OWS were to reduce the national debt...)

Years later, you still miss the point completely.

Wonkette points to only some of your fundamental mistakes:

"Good news, Poors! David Brooks has decided to take on the topic of income inequality, and has concluded that 1) income inequality is not actually a problem, and 2) if it were, we shouldn’t solve it by giving poor people more money, and also 3) the growing income of the 1% has nothing to do with the shrinking incomes of the rest of us. Hear that? NOTHING TO DO WITH IT."

And Gawker too...

"Rich people's claim on an unequal share of the money is so unrelated to poor people's unequal share of the money, in fact, that after this paragraph, Brooks never mentions the rich-people part again. Some sets of problems just aren't worth trying to do anything about."

So why is Dave rambling nonsensically about yet another topic this week? Matt Bruenig explains:

"The David Brooks Problem is that he writes opinion columns for the New York Times, but has no idea what he is talking about. The proximate causes are that 1) he doesn't know how to do research, 2) he has no motivation to try because he lives an extravagant and distracted life in his $4 million home."

Stay tuned, folks, for next week's deconstruction of our riveting, all-time favorite NYT columnist, Davey B.