« First Things First | Main | Sad Harvard »

Vast Grace Church Media Conspiracy

Hm . . . it seems that David Brooks, like me (and, for that matter, Nick Confessore), went to the Grace Church School in New York. I'm also a disillusioned former Mets fan, but I've basically given up on baseball altogether, though I suppose a Nationals game would be fun.

March 29, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d8342f442d53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Vast Grace Church Media Conspiracy:

Comments

The correct term is ex-expos.

Posted by: Tom | Mar 29, 2005 11:34:10 AM

I always thought Brooks was from suburban Philadelphia. Isn't that what he wrote in Bobos in Paradise?

For the Phillies' Platonic ideal, I would nominate: "And if you gaze for long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

Posted by: JP | Mar 29, 2005 11:42:17 AM

Time to hop on the bandwagon again! As a longtime Expos fan, I can assure you that cheering for the franchise will be the source of nothing but unadulerated pleasure, consistent winning never marred by heartbreaking second-place finishes, best teams in baseball being thwarted by a cancelled World Series, and other things that bedevil less blessed franchises. Scout's honor!

Posted by: Scott Lemieux | Mar 29, 2005 11:47:15 AM

I thought the subtext there was that he was disillusioned with the elephants?

Posted by: praktike | Mar 29, 2005 11:57:03 AM

My brother knew David Brooks at Radnor High School, on the Philadelphia Main Line.

Posted by: Dave | Mar 29, 2005 12:02:57 PM

He may be from NY, but he lived in Wayne, PA for a long time. Vive Les Expos! Who gets Youppi!? (The exclamation point being part of his(?) name.)

Posted by: db | Mar 29, 2005 12:04:32 PM

Matt, I thought you were a Dalton kid? What gives? Did you go to Grace Church and then Dalton?

Posted by: Quake | Mar 29, 2005 1:02:07 PM

"I thought the subtext there was that he was disillusioned with the elephants?"

That's how I read it also.

Posted by: Joe Drymala | Mar 29, 2005 1:04:35 PM

Hey, that's it! The solution to the political divide in this country. Yglasias and Brooks hash it all out over a couple of beers and $9 hotdogs at a Nationals game!

Posted by: Brew | Mar 29, 2005 1:08:44 PM

You mean "radiant boy" Brooks? What kind of a jackass refers to themselves as "radiant"? Oh yeah--that kind. Brooks leaving the Mets? The blue-collar, red-state in a blue world, anti-elitist Mets? Who is he trying to kid? Its like Kerry giving up Nascar. Somehow I can't picture Brooks in the bleachers at Shea yelling "that guyz a fuckin beater" while he spills his beers in plastic cups (one in each hand) on the drunk next to him. I am guessing radiant is not a word you hear much at Shea. No. Brooks belongs along the first baseline at Yankee stadium next to the Guliani and the other psuedo men of the people.

Posted by: TJon | Mar 29, 2005 1:14:25 PM

I'm enough of a Mets fan to have named my lab "Mookie," and so I'm somewhat disappointed to hear that you consider yourself a disillusioned former Mets fan. What's up with that? Real Mets fans believe in Miracles and realize those miraculous seasons only occur about once a decade (while still indulging in a fair amount of "fuckin' Mets" bitching). You're probably too young to have appreciated the '86 team, so I'm guessing you're a fair weather fan who jumped on the Mets bandwagon in 2000, and then soon thereafter jumped off after the Mets resumed their typical bumbling ways. This may be the year to jump back on Mets bandwagon given the offseason infusion of Pedro and Beltran, though I think it still might take a borderline miracle for the Mets to finish higher than both the Marlins and the loathsome Braves.

Posted by: Bragan | Mar 29, 2005 1:31:39 PM

if i remember correctly, when matt and i were in 6th grade, which would be 1992-1993), he did have a shiny blue mets jacket... as for brooks. he's looking at this season all wrong. sure there have been some big ticket purchases, but the mets have a core of young players that are more exciting than generation k and probably a notch below the darryl, kevin mitchell, and dwight gooden days.

Posted by: eric | Mar 29, 2005 1:45:30 PM

Whoa, my father graduated from Radnor.

Not so much a small world as much as a name you don't expect to see everyday.

Posted by: SamAm | Mar 29, 2005 1:49:58 PM

This must mean you're destined to write for the NY Times.

Posted by: sofia | Mar 29, 2005 2:02:46 PM

My God, I decided to read Brooks's column because I figured he must be a decent writer, and maybe if he is writing about something other than politics he would be tolerable, even interesting.

Boy was I wrong.

It would seem he is incapable of writing anything that is not filles with inane barely comprehensible rambling. I fear his pithy, worthless musing will stain the NYT Op-Ed page for many years to come.

Ugh.

Posted by: Dperl99 | Mar 29, 2005 2:30:50 PM

oooh. Preppy. No kiss like a Hotchkiss.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis | Mar 29, 2005 2:49:13 PM

The Mets ideal is: God smiles upon his darlings. The history of the Mets teaches that miracles happen and the universe is a happy place.

By the way, if Mets fans actually think this is an accurate description of their "creed," they're as delusional as Cubs fans. The Mets have been obnoxious, big-money elitists for at least twenty years. They're nothing but Yankees Jr.

Also, they're going nowhere this year. They may have lots of famous names on their roster, but it isn't 1998 anymore. Piazza, Floyd, and Pedro are all over the hill and all major injury risks. Most of their other everyday guys are below average. Mientkiewicz is terrible. Kaz Matsui is terrible. Beltran's fantastic and Wright could be good, but even so, they aren't going to score enough runs to get to the playoffs. In fact, they have no better than an even shot of breaking .500.

Posted by: JP | Mar 29, 2005 2:53:11 PM

"The Mets have been obnoxious, big-money elitists for at least twenty years. They're nothing but Yankees Jr."

Well, that's what they've tried to be, but they've been bad enough at it that it can still make you feel superior to Yankees fans to root for them. And while I don't think Beltran is going to be the next Vince Coleman or Bobby Bonilla, I think fantastic might be a bit generous, and I'm not overly optimistic about their chances this season. I'd love to be proved wrong though.

Posted by: MattT | Mar 29, 2005 3:03:36 PM

"The Mets have been obnoxious, big-money elitists for at least twenty years. They're nothing but Yankees Jr."

Well, that's what they've tried to be, but they've been bad enough at it that it can still make you feel superior to Yankees fans to root for them. And while I don't think Beltran is going to be the next Vince Coleman or Bobby Bonilla, I think fantastic might be a bit generous, and I'm not overly optimistic about their chances this season. I'd love to be proved wrong though.

Posted by: MattT | Mar 29, 2005 3:04:18 PM

Piazza, Floyd, and Pedro are all over the hill and all major injury risks. Most of their other everyday guys are below average. Mientkiewicz is terrible. Kaz Matsui is terrible. Beltran's fantastic and Wright could be good, but even so, they aren't going to score enough runs to get to the playoffs. In fact, they have no better than an even shot of breaking .500.

Your first statement is true; however, even over-the-hill all three, particularly Martinez and Piazza can contribute a lot (if they don't spend much of the time on the DL). I was against the Mets spending $53 million on Pedro, and I was hoping they could unload Piazza on some AL team, but both could easily have better seasons than they did last year, especially Pedro now that he's away from the American League and his "daddy" in the Bronx.

I think you're way off in regard to Mientkiewicz and Kaz. The former is borderline terrible as a hitter for a first baseman, but he's excellent with the glove, and that counts for a lot after a year of Piazza's failed attempt to play there. I think Matsui will be more comfortable at second, and I also expect he'll have a better offensive year now that he has a year of experience. I think Matsui's biggest problem last year was his effort (and secondarily his limited range for a SS) -- after his superhuman debut, he often dogged it. I think he's the kind of player who plays better when his team is more competitive. I don't disagree much with your last two sentences, though I think the Mets biggest problem will not be scoring runs, but holding the lead or staying close in later innings -- the bullpen still sucks.

Posted by: Bragan | Mar 29, 2005 3:28:28 PM

An aging star can always have a one-year renaissance, of course, but the trendlines look bad for both Piazza and Pedro (and definitely for Floyd). I'm willing to reserve judgment on Matsui, but I think that on balance Mientkiewicz just hurts you way too much on offense to justify a starting spot. He's definitely a very good defensive player, but first base is an offensive position for a reason - it's easy to play and being great at it doesn't bring all that much added value. Compared to Delgado and Thome, you're immediately spotting 30 homers and 60 RBIs to two of your biggest division rivals, and that's just a huge gap to have to make up for at the other positions.

Posted by: JP | Mar 29, 2005 3:52:19 PM

If Reyes can avoid those nagging leg injuries (granted, a big if) and can continue the success he's had thus far this spring, and with Beltran and Wright in the middle of the order. I think the Mets can afford "Alphabet" at first, particularly when you consider that even an over-the-hill Piazza provides much better than average production for a catcher, and I think Kaz also has the potential to provide better than average production for 2B. Cameron won't hit for a good average, but he does have plenty of pop in his bat, and I love having the luxury of being able to play a center field talent in right. Granted, Floyd is a big question mark, but if he is relatively healthy, he's good for at least 25 and 90. Reyes is the key to the Mets offense this year.

Posted by: Bragan | Mar 29, 2005 4:49:26 PM

Real men, like Nick C., went to Hunter. "Girly men" went to Dalton.

Posted by: anon | Mar 29, 2005 5:57:47 PM

Matt;

A little while ago in explaining your purported ignorance about Easter you claimed that you had no contact with gentiles as a lad yet apparantly you attended the Grace Church school. What gives?

Posted by: Jonathan | Mar 30, 2005 4:46:53 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.