{"id":474,"date":"2012-01-28T16:45:27","date_gmt":"2012-01-28T23:45:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/libernetics.com\/?p=474"},"modified":"2012-07-10T12:38:33","modified_gmt":"2012-07-10T19:38:33","slug":"thomas-friedman-in-your-face","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/libernetics.com\/?p=474","title":{"rendered":"Thomas Friedman: In Your Face"},"content":{"rendered":"

I’ve come to the conclusion that when people really, really enjoy conversation with a person who is great at conversations, and they agree with them, they label that person “erudite” and “articulate.” When there is a disagreement, that same person is “a pompous ass.” A great case in point is Thomas Friedman<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Thomas Friedman has become so famous, and controversial, that there is a cottage industry of sorts that has emerged to refute him.<\/p>\n

First, we have\u00a0The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Friedman at Work, by Bel\u00e9n Fern\u00e1ndez<\/a>: wherein we read that “Factual errors, ham-fisted analysis, and contradictory assertions\u2014compounded by a penchant for mixed metaphors and name-dropping\u2014distinguish the work of Pulitzer Prize\u2013winning New York Times columnist and author Thomas Friedman.”<\/em><\/p>\n

Ms. Fern\u00e1ndez<\/a> has taken time out of what must be a very busy career to skewer Friedman. \u00a0And then a whole slew of writers reviewed her review of him. \u00a0He’s the handmaiden of the elite! \u00a0She has succeeded in “filleting the silliest man on the planet!” \u00a0A\u00a0dangerous fraud, that’s what he is. \u00a0He needs a really really\u00a0effective eviscerating. \u00a0Aljazeera\u00a0<\/a>reviewed “Imperial Messagner”, summing up their opinion by leading with this: “Thomas Friedman’s writing on the Middle East is condescending and often misleading.<\/em>” \u00a0Now were getting somewhere. \u00a0Some famous names in there, but I’m too modest to name them.<\/p>\n

Some of these are, heck most of them, are so\u00a0vitriolic\u00a0they are hilarious. This from Matt Tiabbi\u00a0reviewing\u00a0“The World is Flat”<\/a>\u00a0(Flathead! hahaha!) is perhaps the funniest line from a book review I’ve ever read. After lambasting\u00a0Friedman\u00a0for being a sappy, sloppy, weak minded fool,<\/p>\n

“Friedman is a person who not only speaks in malapropisms, he also hears malapropisms…This is the intellectual version of Far Out Space Nuts, when NASA repairman Bob Denver sets a whole sitcom in motion by pressing “launch” instead of “lunch” in a space capsule. And once he hits that button, the rocket takes off.”<\/em><\/p>\n

he then delivers this verbal assault:<\/p>\n

“God strike me dead if I’m joking about this. Judge for yourself. …[the] baseline argument begins with a lengthy description of the “ten great flatteners,” which is basically a highlight reel of globalization tomahawk dunks from the past two decades: the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the Netscape IPO, the pre-Y2K outsourcing craze, and so on. Everything that would give an IBM human resources director a boner, that’s a flattener. “<\/em><\/p>\n

God strke me dead! Globalizaton tomahawk dunks! IBM HR guy with an (ahem!) erection. You have to love that level of angst. That kind of exasperation does not come cheap. I can only imagine how many vodka martinis it took to relax at the end of that day. \u00a0Someone should rewrite Camus’ “The Stranger”<\/a> with Tiabbi and Friedman as the protagonists. Why stop there? Let’s redo “Les Mis<\/a>.” It’s that good. Thomas Friedman is giving journalists fits of existential hernias just by being alive and writing columns. \u00a0God strike me dead if I’m wrong.<\/p>\n

Some of the critique is so harsh it’s\u00a0embarrassing. Conservative writer Debbie Schlussel is absolutely apoplectic<\/a>. She reaches a level I would say goes beyond anger.<\/p>\n

“I don\u2019t begrudge the gentile and Arab Muslim Jew-haters and Israel-attackers as much as their Jewish anti-Semitic comrades. … Thomas Friedman … would race from his DC-area mansion and run over his own mother if it meant the chance to eat shawarmeh<\/a>\u00a0with King Abdullah (either the Saudi or Jordanian King Abdullah, take your pick as he bends over for both) and attack Israel.<\/em><\/p>\n

In truth, Tom Friedman isn\u2019t a Jew in any way shape or form. Instead, he\u2019s a far-left radical in a tweed coat with a BS Pulitzer Prize. And if you ask his patrons in the Gulf states and the Middle East, to them, he\u2019s just the pet camel . . . bending over and assuming the position. I\u2019m not sure who paid for Friedman\u2019s mansions, aside from many gullible dumbasses who bought his cliche-filled, toilet-paper-worthy books. But I wouldn\u2019t be surprised if his writing and commentary was bought and paid for by the Arab Muslim lobby. Someone needs to look into that.”<\/em><\/p>\n

Ouch! That’s gotta hurt! She even compares him unfavorably to porn star Ron\u00a0Jeremy. Whoa Nelly! Time for a cartoon<\/a>!<\/p>\n

The list goes on:\u00a0Thomas Friedman Wants YOU to Sacrifice<\/a>\u00a0from the Center for Economic and Policy\u00a0Research,\u00a0Tom Friedman’s losing battle<\/a>\u00a0from Caroline Glick,\u00a0Thomas Friedman = Captain Obvious<\/a>\u00a0from Business Insider.<\/p>\n

I almost need a cigarette. \u00a0Anyway Friedman has been a reporter for a long time — since 1980, starting out at UPI and\u00a0shortly\u00a0thereafter\u00a0at The New York Times. He’s written thousands of columns and articles, several books, and has the distinction of having been on Charlie Rose 18 times<\/a>. In other words he is well known. Not just well known, but prominent. \u00a0And he is very, very much in love with writing his opinions. \u00a0That may be the problem.<\/p>\n

And he is, (ahem! in my opinion) a conversationalist. He loves words. I’ve read two of his books (“The Lexus and the Olive Tree<\/a>“, and “From Beirut to\u00a0Jerusalem<\/a>“) and found them interesting in parts, and trite in others. I think his columns are a better read then his books. I suppose that’s because I see his columns as op-ed pieces. In others words, as with all op-ed pieces, I come prepared to watch for the sleight-of-hand that goes with that kind of writing.<\/p>\n

The problem is that when he gets into bigger projects\u00a0his opinions\u00a0get\u00a0stretched\u00a0really thin by the reality that some facts don’t fit the framework of his arguments.<\/p>\n

This will give you some idea of what I mean. \u00a0Here we have a whole blog devoted to reinterpreting Friedman’s columns: The Mustache of Understanding<\/a>:<\/p>\n

“Essentially, what we have here is Friedman recognizing that, however reasonable his proposals are, very few other pundits and political figures have spoken up in support of them. To compensate, he engages in the time-honored political tradition of projecting your views onto others and casting them as cheerleaders for your approach. … Tom Friedman writes things and then feels a need to include a quote from some guy he probably met at a cocktail party repeating whatever point it was he just made. It’s really irritating.”<\/em><\/p>\n

Can you imagine? Whole books and blogs devoted to ripping apart every article you have written? Every day, right after it’s published? Now that’s famous. \u00a0When you have that kind of\u00a0adrenalin\u00a0rush going who needs recreational drugs?<\/p>\n

Seriously, all this has given me an idea. What if I just read every book review and then evaluated the reviewer? Never mind reading the books, the heck with that. I can make money riffing<\/a> off the quirky, exasperatingly hilarious writers writing about other peoples writing.<\/p>\n

Well that’s it for today. Thanks for stopping by and have a great day!<\/p>\n