Before I forget, which I done did, People v David Brooks is not a closed case. He did not mea culpa to everything, not even the main thing. He mea culpa'd to being "stupid" but he went on: "If there's a larger point here it is that even as inflation goes down the reality for many people less fortunate than I is the sticker shock they encounter when they have to pay much more for something than they anticipated." So Brooks did not mea culpa to the key thing, a thing he has done over and over again: he misled readers, of his "stupid" tweet in this instance, of lengthier lengthier writing in his column in other instances. THAT is David Brooks' serious crime and he attempted to get a free pass on that by giving a justification of on a "larger point," sticker shock--when there was no sticker shock! His meal totaled under $20. The rest of his near $80 bill was BOOZE. FUCK. HIM.