I notice that in David Brooks' column today he singles out this humble blog as an example of the "the keyboard jockeys [who] had a responsibility to sniff up vast conspiracies and get lost in creepy minutiae."

Now, speaking of everyone playing their assigned roles, I understand that David's role is to clothe all this stuff over with the gauze of morality and forgetfullness. But one thing did jump out at me -- David's use of the phraseology of 'conspiracies' and particularly those of a 'vast' sort.

This was precisely the language David used back in 2003 and 2004 when his role of choice was running interference against anyone and everyone who questioned the execution of or motives behind the Iraq War -- or alleging anti-semitism. Of course, most of those suspicions have now been amply borne out. So for David's heuristic betterment, alleging conspiracies means actually alleging conspiracies. Questioning the accounts of known dissemblers is just common sense.