[or, "He, Brooks, a Racist"?]
Why is David Brooks pushing, on the NYTimes OpEd page, the work of a man, Steve Sailer, who thinks:
_________
"[A]n infectious disease itself could cause homosexuality. It's probably not a venereal germ, but maybe an intestinal or respiratory germ."
-"If we didn't want blacks to engage in ethnocentric politics, well, our ancestors shouldn't have dragged them here in chains. We can, however, moderate the amount of diversity we import in the future."
and quoting from a profile on him
-"once the 'Mexican invasion' engulfs the country, 'high teenage birthrates, poverty, ignorance and disease will be what remains.'"
_________
Moreover, Sailer, Brooks' go-to guy for insightful election analysis, gives high marks to the Pioneer Fund, which "encourage[s] a higher birth rate among the best of the white race."
Is this more "code language" -- like Bush citing Dred Scott in the debates -- to mollify the far (far, far) right? I'm even willing (nay, eager) to consider that it's only sloppy reporting and not a true underlying racist agenda that drives Brooks to promote this guy's worldview. If so, it's merely disgusting and irresponsible.
Can we please throw Brooks over the side now please? Sycophant or hack, he's no one to be trusted.