via atrios, i read this article which checked on some of the generalizations brooks has made about the contrasts between urban and rural america and found them to be untrue.
it's a good article and when people get so much attention for their writings, they should be called to task for it. but i read the article less as an indictment of brooks than as a reminded that many commonly held prejudices (including many that i have, consciously or not) about other parts of the country are not necessarily true. when brooks writes about "the meatloaf line" in american geography--a line which, once crossed, means that "there will be a lot fewer sun-dried-tomato concoctions on restaurant menus and a lot more meatloaf platters"-- it taps into some of my own sense about the regional differences in this country.
it seems to me that the only reason brooks is so successful at misrepresenting "red" america is because people like me happen to believe it. that doesn't excuse brooks, but it doesn't excuse me either
