David Brooks goes leaping to conclusions and tells me I am absolutely crazy - me, a former TIME Man of the Year!
Two things happened to Sandra Bullock this month. First, she won an Academy Award for best actress. Then came the news reports claiming that her husband is an adulterous jerk. So the philosophic question of the day is: Would you take that as a deal? Would you exchange a tremendous professional triumph for a severe personal blow?
On the one hand, an Academy Award is nothing to sneeze at. Bullock has earned the admiration of her peers in a way very few experience. She’ll make more money for years to come. She may even live longer. Research by Donald A. Redelmeier and Sheldon M. Singh has found that, on average, Oscar winners live nearly four years longer than nominees that don’t win.
Nonetheless, if you had to take more than three seconds to think about this question, you are absolutely crazy.
Wait, I'm still thinking! Call me crazy, but I am puzzling over the proposition - are we meant to think that Ms. Bullock's personal blow was discovering for herself the truth about her husband's deplorable infidelity, her embarrassment that the rest of us were now privy to her secret strife, or the deplorable infidelity itself? Put another way, if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, was he cheating on her?
Let's reason together. If Ms. Bullock knew her husband was a hound dog and their deal was that he not embarrass her, then she has experienced both public acclaim and shame in the same couple of weeks, but the actual infidelity is not news to her. Would she prefer an Academy Award and a cheating, indiscreet husband or no Academy Award and a cheating but discreet husband? Saying yes to that deal may not be so daft.
On the other hand, she may have just found this out about the guy, which must be deeply painful. On the third hand, if she had not found out he was a cheater but he continued to be one, would she have continued with her False Happiness? For how long? Eventually truth will out, except when it doesn't. Is her choice between an Academy Award now accompanied by heartbreak next week, versus no Academy Award and heartbreak next year? Tricky!
If Brooksie can process all that nuance in just three seconds, he deserves his spot at the Times. Which he can use to drive the rest of us crazy.
Me. I'd take the Academy Award and since Brooks makes his living writing tripe for the NYT I think it clear he values money and fame over integrity and reputation.
Posted by: Clarice | March 30, 2010 at 04:00 PM
Dr Helen today on PJM made the argument that many "liberals" basically have no capacity for personal empathy.
Brooks may just be proving he really is a liberal.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 30, 2010 at 04:04 PM
In related news, Ricky Martin admitted that he is gay.
Frankly, I didn't need to know that but Ricky forced it on us last night.
Posted by: Neo | March 30, 2010 at 04:10 PM
Charlie, are you saying that George W Bush's "compassionate conservatism" is roughly equivalent of Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain" ?
Posted by: Neo | March 30, 2010 at 04:12 PM
I don't think so, neo.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 30, 2010 at 04:20 PM
There was a funny tweet in Spanish about Ricky Martin last night. It basically said that Ricky Martin had come out, and so the tweeter was suggesting March 29 should be the date for the festival of the International Day of the Obvious.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 30, 2010 at 04:22 PM
See LUN for the column that is the subject of this thread. In the course of this column, Brooks states the following:
What unadulterated BS. The last thing I need research for is to inform me as to the balance I should make between personal tradeoffs. I am capable of making those myself without research or condescending snobs such as Brooks.
We each must make a separate peace with ourselves. Some may choose success in the outside world over personal relationships. For some, part of personal relationships may be being a good provider by being successful in the outside world. For some, much reflection and study and little interaction with people feed the soul. For others constant interaction with other people is a key to good living. There is no reason to assume that a hermit is or is not more fulfilled than a socialite. These are issues beyond the knowledge of humans. All we can do is make our way the best we can and find out about ourselves the best we can.
Brooks's op ed is one of many signs of a sclerotic elite. Yes, discussion of these tradeoffs with close friends may be helpful to each of us in making our way on this level of creation. But to start off with a question on personal tradeoffs and then start pontificating about the latest research? Pathetic. And also unsettling, because boobs such as Brooks may believe that government may have a role in promoting happiness (as opposed to providing a framework to secure the individual right to pursue happiness, which is the appropriate role for government).
When I read columns such as this, I shake my head at the fact that the pseudo elites of the country downgrade someone such as Palin. Have the psuedo elites no idea about the depths to which they have sunk? If Plato wrote his dialogues today, he would have to add a subcave beneath his cave where Brooks-type characters reside. It would be their fate to have to struggle to reach the cave where they can sit chained in front of the wall to see the shadows of the artifacts. Turning to see the artifacts and making the journey to see the reflections of the sun are steps beyond them.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 30, 2010 at 04:23 PM
All true, TC. OTOH it must be awful to have to write something week after week. I know I don't have 52 brilliant ideas every year. So the tripe to meaningful content ratio grows each year a person is a columnist--with rare exceptions like Barone.
Posted by: Clarice | March 30, 2010 at 04:31 PM
Clarice, I agree about the difficulty of doing regular writing. However, I would have time for nothing else if I had to search for a bad column of yours, and I still probably wouldn't find anything I could plausibly call bad. Barone is another one. Jay Cost also comes to mind.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 30, 2010 at 04:35 PM
Although, to be fair to Brooks, I don't think he has yet sunk to the level of Frank Rich.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 30, 2010 at 04:37 PM
I remember watching one of Jesse James chopper shows several years ago.
He was attending a strip bar, on air, while married to his previous wife.
He's a tatooed, foul mouthed, hard drinking, biker with severe father and family issues who apparently not only cheated on but hit his wife while doing his previous series and Sandra Bullock is surprised he cheated on her?
If she can make anyone believe that she certainly deserves her Oscar.
Posted by: Ignatz | March 30, 2010 at 04:42 PM
Wayyyyy too generous, TC..But I agree on Cost. Found him in 2004 when he was a student at the Univ of Chicago and I've never ignored anything he's written.
Posted by: Clarice | March 30, 2010 at 04:42 PM
Apparently, she and Jesse were into all sorts of fun stuff. Remember, Jesse's former wife is a porn star. That Mr. Brooks would waste an iota of ink on the subject is simply laughable.
Logic, morals and decency are to Hollywood like a digital watch is to a chimpanzee. Incomprehensible.
Posted by: matt | March 30, 2010 at 04:45 PM
Interesting point Tom on the difference between unknown and known adultery. I would say that both events for Bulloch were a success, one the Oscar, and two, catching the bum. She should celebrate that she found out the truth.
I noticed there are two types of women, and men I suppose too, those who want to know and those who don't. The ones who don't are very willing to accept that the other woman is lying and crazy and hounding her poor man. But if the truth is important to Bulloch, then she was pleased with finding out.
I agree with the writer that interpersonal relationships are key. However, better to have truly good interpersonal relationships, than fakely good ones. So many aren't good. Only the lucky minority get those. So professional success and interests can be a good second place.
Posted by: sylvia | March 30, 2010 at 04:54 PM
I agree with Ignatz that she should have known. People do not change. The saying "once a cheater always a cheater " isn't a saying for nothing. Chronic cheaters like that come with a certain personality type, that allow them to lie constantly, and people's personalities typicallly don't change.
Posted by: sylvia | March 30, 2010 at 04:58 PM
--Remember, Jesse's former wife is a porn star.--
His first wife, which was the one he was married to when I saw that show seemed relatively normal compared to that tattooed porn thing he married later.
Posted by: Ignatz | March 30, 2010 at 05:01 PM
"I don't think he has yet sunk to the level of Frank Rich."
Digging down through 100 feet of whale excreta is tough. Give him some time.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 30, 2010 at 05:06 PM
ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz.............
Posted by: JM Hanes | March 30, 2010 at 05:20 PM
If Plato wrote his dialogues today, he would have to add a subcave beneath his cave where Brooks-type characters reside.
I hadn't realized until just now that that allegory lacked any mention of a sewer. Now thanks to TC I can imagine it perfectly.
Speaking of allegories, do I get to be the first to note the irony of David Brooks musing about whether it's worth it to have tremendous personal success when you find out the man you loved has been lying to you?
Posted by: bgates | March 30, 2010 at 05:34 PM
Jay Cost also comes to mind.
And Krauthammer.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 30, 2010 at 05:43 PM
Does Brooks think that all marriages in which neither spouse is adulterous are happy ones?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 30, 2010 at 05:45 PM
He does get aggressively stupider over time, honestly, now the folks at NRO earlier linked
a defense of Brooks by Richard Vigilante, on his own blog that was unpersuasive to say the
least; among other things, it said the lefties
really dislike Brooks, well insincere toadies
are hard to take
Posted by: narciso the harpoon | March 30, 2010 at 05:49 PM
Speaking of being trapped in the cave, Roger Ebert's most recent contribution, in the LUN
Posted by: narciso the harpoon | March 30, 2010 at 06:07 PM
sorry wrong LUN
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2010/03/30/roger-ebert-its-invention-no-president-needs-teleprompter-less-barack-
Posted by: narciso the harpoon | March 30, 2010 at 06:09 PM
Is it just me, or is "the educated elite" coming more and more to resemble the French Aristocracy of about 1785-8?
Like the Bourbons, "they forget nothing, and they learn nothing."
As for writing, in general, Sturgeons' Law prevails. When informed that a U of Chicago professor couple didn't read science fiction [which he made a living writing] because, "90% of it's crap." Sturgeon replied that that's "because 90% of everything is crap." His strong implication was that it takes crap to get the good stuff.
That seems to be true, again, in general, but Brooks appears intent on proving that a huge load of crap doesn't have to include even 10% "good stuff."
And I love the idea of a sewer in the cave. I may have to look up an old prof and mention it to him. I'm sure he'd love the idea.
Posted by: JorgXMcKie | March 30, 2010 at 06:25 PM
He was still married when Sandra "met" him. They married soon after he was divorced from his second wife. She knowingly married an adulterous jerk.
There are also rumors that the details of his infidelity were known to her, pre-Oscars, but she just didn't feel like dealing with it in all the press that is the Awards Season.
Posted by: MayBee | March 30, 2010 at 06:29 PM
Interesting article by City Journal's Nicole Gelinas atht e Motley Fool on too big to fail and the Volcker Rule.
Like most City Journal writers it's always worthwhile to read her.
Posted by: Ignatz | March 30, 2010 at 06:33 PM
sly and funny, bgates!
Posted by: JeanD | March 30, 2010 at 06:34 PM
Anybody else having a problem posting on certain threads today? This appears to be the only one my posts show up on currently.
I had some real first rate zingers disappear into the ether several times on other threads.
Well at least I consider it safe to label them first rate zingers since they're apparently gone and no one can prove they weren't. :)
Posted by: Ignatz | March 30, 2010 at 06:59 PM
Brooks holds the world record for rolling over after a visit to O's office.
Posted by: Frau Krankenhaus | March 30, 2010 at 07:13 PM
Yep Ignatz, I've been told we are all fashionistas on the web...and now we can also be comedians! BTW I am dressed impeccably this evening!
Posted by: Janet | March 30, 2010 at 07:13 PM
I for one am certain they were, Iggy.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 30, 2010 at 07:14 PM
OY - Al ArseHat sighting in Beverly Hills:
"At one point a woman wielding handcuffs attempted to make a citizen’s arrest of Rove, who was there to promote his book…Courage and Consequences. Nevertheless, Rove, who was without security, didn’t go quietly when faced with this particular set of consequences. According to the report below he engaged a number of the protesters accusing them of being perfect examples of the “intolerance of the left.”
Cleo must look radiant in pink.
Posted by: Frau Rosa | March 30, 2010 at 07:24 PM
I've never understood the Queequeg fetish.
Posted by: MikeS | March 30, 2010 at 11:00 PM
I'm not understanding Brook's thought question. Why would Bullock have to choose between receiving an Oscar and having a faithful husband? Are the two (receiving an Oscar and having a faithful spouse) in anyway related to each other? Is that James' retort to Bullock: "If I hadn't fooled around you wouldn't have won the Academy Award"?
Posted by: David Walser | March 31, 2010 at 03:00 AM
Last month I read that Sandra Bullock burned her cooter while trying to dye the hair pink for Valentines day. I didn't mention it previously because I was waiting for Brooks to weigh in on what the "educated class" made of that regarding the strength of her marriage and overall happiness.
Posted by: Captain Hate | March 31, 2010 at 07:21 AM
Captain Hate - Hahaha! Yeah, thank heaven for the "educated class". I might have mistakenly missed this vital happy marriage insight. Brooks is my go-to guy on marriage counseling and life priorities.
Hopefully there is no tattooed nazi-themed seductress at my husbands work place...lurking around while I pursue the homemaker of the year award.
Posted by: Janet | March 31, 2010 at 07:44 AM
At one point a woman wielding handcuffs attempted to make a citizen’s arrest of Rove, who was there to promote his book…Courage and Consequences. Nevertheless, Rove, who was without security, didn’t go quietly when faced with this particular set of consequences. According to the report below he engaged a number of the protesters accusing them of being perfect examples of the “intolerance of the left
I just heard a sound clip of that: Some of the Code Stinkers were yammering about "outing an undercover CIA agent". Shouldn't they be going after that fat POS Armitage and his friend Powell? WTF!
Posted by: Captain Hate | March 31, 2010 at 11:01 AM
Cooter? Did you say Cooter? Isn't great how AlGore's great invention just brings things together.
Posted by: Strawman Cometh | April 01, 2010 at 01:15 AM
"On the third hand"? Surely you must mean, "on the gripping hand."
Posted by: Rex | April 01, 2010 at 10:20 AM