Brooks and His Own Campaign of Stupiding-Down

[Mort Zuckerman]

To: dwh...@forbes.com, ca...@drcarolgoodheart.com,
lPick...@cdc.gov, Durlan...@yale.edu, Aa...@columbia.edu,
gary_w...@nymc.edu, scientifi...@ostp.gov,
pkru...@princeton.edu, Stanle...@fiu.edu,
emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@ct.gov, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, saint....@sbcglobal.net
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, criminal...@usdoj.gov,
karla.d...@usdoj.gov, christophe...@usdoj.gov,
richar...@yale.edu, harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu,
inq...@aldf.com, ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com

Subject: Brooks and His Own Campaign of Stupiding-Down

Date: Oct 8, 2010 8:03 AM

Article Below
================================

Well, ya know, maybe there is something
wrong with the so-called "social system,"
such as where today science has become
a personality contest, or the personality
cult of Allen Steere:
http://www.actionlyme.org/AAPP_STEERE.htm
Or, I guess I mean ^^^ the "Psychopathic
Personality Disorder Personality Cult of
Allen Steere," according to Dr. Michael
Schwarts

Or maybe there is something wrong with the
social engineering where all the college students
are told to "go for it," as regards sex. To "get
whatever you can out of it."

I quote directly, a lecture I overheard
at Southern CT State (College) University.
It's not about Love, see. It's about
getting one's rocks off.

You know, maybe instead there is something
wrong with the likes of a culture that
teaches that one should always wear the false
persona of "'Cool' Without Merit":
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/opinion/17brooks.html
"Moreover, the status system doesn’t really revolve around money. It
consists of trying to prove you are savvier than everybody else, that
above all you are nobody’s patsy."

Maybe there is something detrimental towards
creative intelligence that we've overlooked
when children are advised to never take the MEEeeee
out of every occasion or equation.

Besides, Facebook is a way to find like-minded
individuals and is an explosion of anti-
Corporatism, which is something we'll never
find at The Most Glorious Fountain of AmerIsraeli
Kool-Aid, the New York Times.

I think, well, a criticism of folks who
don't believe science and accomplishment
is a personality- or popularity- contest
are necessarily lacking (or less than human
or whatever the hell Brooks is trying to say)
is where we ought to focus the microscope.

Maybe it's *psychiatry* and their dogma of
MEeee-worship as the critical mass needed to
overcome America's shortage of scientific talent -
the one, overarching, BIG NEWS of the week, as
regards the FDA.

I think it would be a nice change to change
the punditocracy (which never gets anything
right) in an effort towards raising the bar,
rather than this, Brooks, The Self-Shining Knight
of Knows-Nothing and Sour Grapes as the Op-Ed
face of "MEeeeeee!!!!!"

I wonder what Brooks ever did to elect himself
as some sort of a scholar. His evolution/promotion
might have been along the lines of Cheney-and-Rovism,
where they believe they make their own reality.

And here is that reality:
Lost Wars,
Lost Economy,
Lost Scientific/Medical Superiority,
Israeli-Stolen US Weapons and Technology,
Israel's "Lost Nukes" Blackmail and Threats:
http://mycatbirdseat.com/2010/06/gordon-duff-israel-scams-u-s-%E2%80%9Cgaza-convoy-carrying-stolen-nukes%E2%80%9D/
The Unresolved 911 Stunt,
http://www.800poundgorilla.100webspace.net/Israel_did_911.pdf
Psychopathic Soldiers:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/10/07/support-the-troops/
Infamous War Crimes of all Sorts
(Guatemala STDs and bioweapon-bombing China)

Yes, ^^^ evil is powerful. But stupid.

And the source of it is cowardice- the
FEAR of being LESS THAN another, which,
I mean,... if jealousy isn't the essence of
this, Brooks' Op-Ed, he would say something
complimentary about the societal outcome
of Facebook.

Participants all agree that: "If it
is published in the New York Times,
it isn't the real news."

It's great stuff. I learn more on Facebook,
than AntiWar, Rawstory, TruthDig, Counterpunch,
and Common Dreams combined.

It even selects *out* the witches of Lyme
who are antagonistic to progress, like
http://www.lymediseaseassociation.org
who won't ever let certain people or information
on their boards and lists, because, well, then,
the witches won't be the QUEENS of NO
PROGRESS!!!

To Wit: OspA as the Greatest Imitator
or the source of all the chronic disabling
outcomes of Lyme is not in Pam Weintraub's
book, "Cure Unknown," or it would be called
"Cause Known."

To Wit Two: ILADS.org and that Lyme Queens'
gang never say a word about the mechanisms
by which the Tb, Lyme and HIV non-vaccines
were non-vaccines, but that was the very
thing the FDA and Anthony Fauci were
crying in their soup over for the last
2.5 years.

And WHY had they no access to scientific
revelation?

It's wasn't "ALL ABOUT THEM!!"

What's WRONG with FOLKS is where they
think "socializing" and playing a fools'
popularity contest game is the key to
Humanness, when the reverse is true.

The kid was smart *because* he didn't drink
the MEEEee Kool-Aid.


KMDickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
http://www.relapsingfever.org
==============================

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/opinion/17brooks.html

Op-Ed Columnist
The Facebook Searchers
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: October 7, 2010

In 1952, two-thirds of Harvard applicants were admitted. The average
verbal SAT score for incoming freshmen was 583. If your father went to
Harvard, you had a 90 percent chance of getting in.
Josh Haner/The New York Times

David Brooks
Go to Columnist Page »
The Conversation
Conversation

David Brooks and Gail Collins talk between columns.
All Conversations »
Related

*
Times Topic: Mark E. Zuckerberg

Readers' Comments

Share your thoughts.

* Post a Comment »
* Read All Comments (10) »

Harvard’s president at the time, James Bryant Conant, decided to
change that. Harvard could no longer be about birth and WASP breeding,
he realized. It had to promote intelligence and merit. Within eight
years, the average freshman had a verbal score of 678 and a math score
of 695. New sorts of people were going to Harvard — more intellectual
and less blue blood. But Conant didn’t want his school to be home to
unidimensional brainiacs. He hoped to retain the emphasis on
character.

In “The Social Network,” the director David Fincher and the
screenwriter Aaron Sorkin imagine that these two Harvards still exist
side by side. On top, there is the old WASP Harvard of Mayflower
families, regatta blazers and Anglo-Saxon cheekbones. Underneath,
there is the largely Jewish and Asian Harvard of brilliant but geeky
young strivers.

This social structure will be familiar to moviegoers. From “Animal
House” through “Revenge of the Nerds,” it has provided the basic
plotline for most collegiate movies. But as sociology, of course, it’s
completely fanciful.

The old WASP Harvard is dead. As Nathan Heller writes in an
intelligent blog post called “You Can’t Handle the Veritas,” (Sorkin
also wrote “A Few Good Men”), most kids at Harvard today come from
pressure-cooker suburban schools. The old clubs are “vestigial
curios.” Computer geeks do not spend their days desperately trying to
join the Protestant Establishment because people born in 1984 don’t
know what it is.

Still, if the “The Social Network” is bad sociology, it is very good
psychology. The movie does a brilliant job dissecting the sorts of
people who become stars in an information economy and a
hypercompetitive, purified meritocracy. It deftly captures what many
of them have and what they lack, what they long for and what they end
up with.

The character loosely based on Mark Zuckerberg, a co-founder of
Facebook, is incredibly smart. Over the years, movies like “Good Will
Hunting” have delighted in showing acts of mental superheroism.
Educated audiences seem to experience wish-fulfillment ecstasy while
watching their heroes effortlessly leap hard math problems in a single
bound. Zuckerberg does that a few times in “The Social Network.”

But he is also intense. Success these days isn’t just a product of
intelligence. It’s the brain and the thyroid together: I.Q. married to
energy and a relentless desire to be the best. In this way, the
Zuckerberg character is as elitist as the old Harvardians, just on
different grounds.

What he is lacking is even more striking. The Zuckerberg character is
without social and moral skills. It’s not that he’s a bad person. He’s
just never been house-trained. He’s been raised in a culture reticent
to talk about social and moral conduct. The character becomes a global
business star without getting a first-grade education in interaction.

There is a propelling mismatch between his intellectual skills and his
social and moral ones. Desperately, he longs to fill the hole. In the
first scene, he tries with a one-way verbal barrage that is designed
to impress but ends up repelling the girl he loves. Then he does it by
creating the social network itself — trying to use the medium he
understands to conquer the medium he doesn’t.

In Fincher and Sorkin’s handling, Zuckerberg is a sympathetic
character because despite all his bullying, he deeply feels what he
lacks, and works tirelessly to fill the hole. In a world of mentor
magnets and eager-to-please climbers, he is relentlessly inner-
directed. But this is a movie propelled by deficiency, not genius.

The central tension of the picture is between his outward success and
his inner failure. It seems to be a tragic and recurring feature of
life that the people who work to design great products for the golden
circle find after they are finished that they are still unable to join
it.

In the 20th century, immigrant Hollywood directors made hyperpatriotic
movies that defined American life but found after fame and fortune
they were still outsiders. In this movie, Zuckerberg designs a
fabulous social network, but still has his reciprocity problem. He is
still afflicted by his anhedonic self-consciousness, his failure to
communicate, his inability to lose himself in the throngs at a party
or the capacity to deserve the love he craves.

Many critics have compared this picture to “Citizen Kane.” But I was
reminded of the famous last scene in “The Searchers,” in which the
John Wayne character is unable to join the social bliss he has
created. The character gaps that propel some people to do something
remarkable can’t be overcome simply because they have managed to
change the world.


KMDickson