Mexican food and "ethnic food" (I hate that term, but you know what I mean) remains far more affordable than upscale European foods. It makes sense to go to a Mexican place for anyone of less means (and anyone who likes delicious food).

So, like a normal (non-elite university asshole) person hears someone say, "I went to a school in Boston" and they just hear "I went to a school in Boston."
They don't hear, "BE REALLY IMPRESSED - I WENT TO HARVARD - BUT I WANT TO PRETEND THAT IS SOME SORT OF HINDRANCE TO MY LIFE AND SOCIAL PROSPECTS!"

Ironic, I think? Or, possibly self-consciously trying to NOT be classist through irony? (i.e., denigrating an excellent college is safer than admitting you went to an excellent college.)

Yes - as I comment elsewhere, I think this whole comment thread is misguided. Brooks may have been (read: was) inartful in his approach, but he was trying to use the sandwich bit for color. This was a much worse handled version of the Wire episode where Bunny takes the school kids to dinner at a restaurant.

I'll quibble with you and phantom Brooks - the driver is certain institutions, chiefly education, labor, and to a lesser degree, health. Only the SUPER wealthy have enough raw cash to completely short circuit the system (a la Kushner, Trumps, etc.).

Lisa Simpson's safety school!

Compared to the techbros and their female techbro equivalents, Brooks is no worse. It's better than hearing a pitch for some random crappy software.

A big fan of footnotes.

Is TV a good writer now?

IIRC, he came out for same-sex marriage before Obama or Clinton (and the vast majority of the GOP).

Bingo. If we're freezing out Brooks, I don't really know what you do with the actual Trump supporters? And, if we freeze out the right leaning people (who, yes, have done awful things), are we basically just on pause until 2018? There's a real, plausible chance of a massive assault on the Trump administration - to…

And that's where I come out - I don't agree with all of most of much of a lot of hardly anything that today's Republican's stand for. But if a Republican is standing for a) fighting income inequality, b) BLM, c) stopping climate change, d) ending the Drug War, or e) taking down Trump, I'm on board.

Yes. And maybe I'm being to charitable, but that's what I think he was aiming his article at - he just got caught up in colorful nonsense.

Getting Tex-Mex?

Yes, I agree - look, I'm not defending him as a person. But, in these horrible times when at least 30% of the country has decided to be a total POS, I'm taking what I can get.

If you got Rand Paul and Paul Ryan drunk and off-message, I believe they'd come off somewhat reasonable and rational. I think they're so deep into their nonsense that they can't find a way out.

I'd suggest it's largely because of fundamental problems in housing, education, and employment. And those things are related to wealthy (and upper-middle class) people willfully keeping opportunities in the hands of their kids.

We can mock this (admittedly not well-written) column but the underlying points it makes are real and significant. Social signifiers may not matter, but the article's real point is that it's becoming nearly impossible for poor and middle class people to rise up. And that's just true.

So many questions:

Thinking back on it, I think it's literally the actual ending that doesn't quite land for me - of course the concept is perfect. But it felt too amped up (in the editing and sound) and it somehow lost the eerieness that worked so well until then. My take, anyway.