Fear And Loathing In Falls Church

You may also like...

42 Responses

  1. Jack B. says:

    Saw the Patrick Non-White byline and an image of David Brooks, and immediately had high (no pun intended) expectations.

    Was not disappointed. Bravo, sir!

  2. Troutwaxer says:

    Man, that's just beautiful. I tend to be very liberal, but Brooks is clearly a moron, and you've done a wonderful job of calling him out!

  3. CGHill says:

    The spirit of Gonzo lives! (How it got to Patrick, I don't know, but on the basis of this piece, I'm glad it did.)

  4. Blaze says:

    This article is stupid. David Brooks has said many times that he is in favor of sensible drug control policy. This article is neither "witty" nor is it "satire".

    It does not meet the quality we expect from Popehat.

  5. RKN says:

    Funny. The only thing I missed: "As your attorney accountant I advise you to…"

  6. mud man says:

    @Patrick: Don't feed the trolls.

  7. SassQueen says:

    In the Brooks piece, replace "weed" with "booze", and tell me again why one is legal and the other isn't?

    What a maroon.

  8. I should add that the idea for this originated with a tweet by Robert Stacy McCain.

    Why not hit his tip jar?

  9. jj says:

    Excellent. Were you by any chance inspired by seeing "The Wolf of Wall Street"?

    I found that movie well made, and absolutely despicable, because the only sympathetic characters were his first wife and his dad. Everyone else deserved Attica, if not Siberia.

  10. db says:

    Love the use of prepoplitical. Brilliant all around.

  11. Wesley says:

    @Blaze:

    This article is stupid. David Brooks has said many times that he is in favor of sensible drug control policy.

    Any drug policy that includes the criminalization of marijuana — or, at minimum, discouraging states from legalizing it on their own — is not "sensible" by any reasonable definition.

  12. SJ Elliott says:

    Shades of Hunter S Thompson!
    Salute!

  13. Mike Brahier says:

    Drug control means not acting like an ass when you are high.

  14. Salty says:

    …What the fuck did I just read?

    Besides an ode to Hunter S. Thompson, of course.

  15. CJColucci says:

    When Brooks gets to his destination, he can find an Applebee"s and pig out at the salad bar.

  16. Lex says:

    We are not worthy.

  17. Jack B. says:

    When Brooks gets to his destination, he can find an Applebee"s and pig out at the salad bar.

    +1

  18. wolfefan says:

    The only time I ever read Brooks is at the Long John Silver's in The Little City once every two weeks. His column is in the Falls Church News Press, and I can finish it off while waiting for my carryout of clams and hush puppies.

  19. Caleb says:

    Very entertaining. I've nothing substantive to add, other than: If you travel from Bethesda to Falls Church via Adams Morgan, you MUST be high.

  20. Bastardo Viejo says:

    The West of Ford is a lawless and disordered place…

    Cultural genocide and mass slaughter of the indigenous peoples will do that to a place, but go on.

  21. Shane says:

    @Blaze

    It does not meet the quality we expect from Popehat.

    You may yet live up to your name.

  22. Shane says:

    @David Brooks

    In legalizing weed, citizens of Colorado are, indeed, enhancing individual freedom. But they are also nurturing a moral ecology in which it is a bit harder to be the sort of person most of us want to be.

    Fuck off nanny, if I want to be Walter Mutherfucking White then you'll get over it.

  23. Nezrite says:

    Selah.

  24. Philosopherva says:

    The state is the actuality of the ethical Idea. It is ethical mind qua the substantial will manifest and revealed to itself, knowing and thinking itself, accomplishing what it knows and in so far as it knows it. The state exists immediately in custom, mediately in individual self-consciousness, knowledge, and activity, while self-consciousness in virtue of its sentiment towards the state, finds in the state, as its essence and the end-product of its activity, its substantive freedom.

    Hegel, Philosophy of Right, 1820

    If Hegel had written the whole of his logic and then said, in the preface or some other place, that it was merely an experiment in thought in which he had even begged the question in many places, then he would certainly have been the greatest thinker who had ever lived. As it is, he is merely comic.
    Søren Kierkegaard, (1844) Journals

  25. J@m3z Aitch says:

    It does not meet the quality we expect from Popehat.

    What do you mean "we," kemosabe?

  26. RogerX says:

    I'm a huge Hunter S. Thompson fan, but I have no idea where this homage is going.

  27. cthulhu says:

    Where's the Ralph Steadman portrait of Brooks? I'd pay good money for that…

  28. Oh hell no name says:

    You were high when you wrote this, weren't you? (it's okay, you don't have to answer) lol

  29. babaganusz says:

    @RogerX:

    perhaps begin here (if not with Patrick's link in comments): http://www.drugwarrant.com/2014/01/the-insufferable-ruth-marcus-and-david-brooks/

  30. Mark - Lord of the Albino Squirrels says:

    "We can stop here. This is VAT country."

  31. Sheriff Fathead says:

    How did you get a grizzly bear in the trunk?

  32. Gbear711 says:

    Very humorous. Reminiscent of a P.J. O'Rourke piece in National Lampoon. Any serious comments on Brooks are a waste of pixels.

  33. Jane says:

    Huh. At the risk of revealing myself as an uninformed moron, I don't really know who David Brooks is (although the name is familiar), and I was so confused by the comments here because when I first skimmed his piece, I thought he was arguing in FAVOR of legalization. "My friends and I used to enjoy weed. We had fun and nothing awful happened, and eventually we decided on our own that we had better things to do…I'd say that in healthy societies government wants to subtly tip the scale to favor temperate, prudent, self-governing citizenship." I thought his argument was that legalizing pot allows citizens to govern themselves, temperately and prudently, the way he and his friends did. (And I skipped the last few sentences.)

    So he's actually saying that we should help citizens govern themselves by keeping pot illegal? Huh.

  34. Warren Vita says:

    At least there was one bit of redeeming value to this piece, at the very bottom:

    Paul Krugman is off today.

  35. Dictatortot says:

    Brooks is so congenitally fatuous that I almost hate to admit he has a point about anything. But there might actually be something to his "moral ecology" assertion.

    As a libertarian-leaning group, by & large, we can grant that it's mostly okay to have your own ideas about the life you'd like to lead. But it seems to me that it also ought to be okay to have ideas about the kind of society you'd like to exist in. There's a kind of tension there … one that I'm not sure that orthodox libertarianism has an answer to.

    It's another way of asking: is there, in fact, such a thing as "civilization" or "society"–something that isn't government or the state, and isn't beholden to them, but is more than the sum of the individuals who comprise it? Every instinct I possess answers "yes" to that question. Maybe I'm just imagining things. But if not, I suspect that the ability to conduct oneself as a member of it requires something other than an ethos of raw volition. Not every stricture is a statist cage; sometimes it might be an armature, or a skeleton–the only thing that gives one a shape worth mentioning.

    None of this amounts to an argument for keeping pot illegal. But despite himself, Brooks might have stumbled onto serious moral turf. Hell of a place to be, with only half a balloon of ether left and a nine-assed cactus demon shambling towards one's car.

  36. JDworkin says:

    A brilliant and spot-on tribute to HST and a simultaneous skewering of Brooks. We tried prohibition before and the unintended consequence was the rise of organized crime that took more than 50 years to quash. Drug prohibition is an expensive nightmarish failure and another phony wedge issue as we incentive police forces to seize properties and maintain populations at for-profit prisons.

  37. @dictatortot,

    As a libertarian-leaning group, by & large, we can grant that it's mostly okay to have your own ideas about the life you'd like to lead. But it seems to me that it also ought to be okay to have ideas about the kind of society you'd like to exist in. There's a kind of tension there … one that I'm not sure that orthodox libertarianism has an answer to.

    I thought the answer was, "you are free to exist in whatever society you'd like to, as long as it doesn't involve forcing others to go there there at gunpoint."

  38. Dictatortot says:

    I thought the answer was, "you are free to exist in whatever society you'd like to, as long as it doesn't involve forcing others to go there there at gunpoint."

    My bad. Perhaps I should have said, "one for which I'm not sure orthodox libertarianism has any answer that's remotely compelling to folks outside the libertarian ghetto."

  39. 205guy says:

    Dictatortot, that is one of the best anti-manichean statements I have heard recently, and it puts into words my own feelings on the meta-matter (including a criticism of libertarians).

  40. JTM says:

    @Dictatortot

    Completely off-topic, but tonight I keep reading "libertarianism" as "librarianism." And I am very intrigued by the idea of a librarian ghetto.

  41. Dictatortot says:

    The "librarian ghetto"? Those are some mean streets, man. Mean, but quiet streets. And with way more than their fair share of smelly homeless dudes.

  1. January 5, 2014

    […] Patrick Non-White imagines the late Hunter S. Thompson's reaction to that notorious bed-wetter David Brooks' recent screed opposing the legalization of pot and arguing that government ought "subtly tip the scale to favor temperate, prudent, self-governing citizenship" by sending out Gestapo teams armed with automatic weapons to break down doors and to nudge Americans in the direction of being better persons by throwing them into prison. […]