tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971281937990640882023-11-16T06:51:57.296-08:00The Mustache of UnderstandingThis blog is devoted to the fountain of pith, profundity, and flatness of Thomas L. Friedman, possessor of the world's only known Mustache of Understanding. In time, the blog hopes to raise funds for a Thomas L. Friedman Institute for Flat Studies at Harvard University.SJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10616456946599270375noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797128193799064088.post-1548739856311047602010-06-13T08:39:00.000-07:002010-06-13T10:51:22.504-07:00Friedman IncognitoThe mustachioed marvel begins his latest column, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/opinion/13friedman.html?hp">"This Time is Different," </a> with the text of a letter to the editor that recently appeared in the Beaufort Gazette, a small daily newspaper in Bluffton, South Carolina. The letter's author is identified as one "Mark Mykleby," a "friend" of Friedman "who works in the Pentagon."<br /><br />Mykleby's letter is suspicious for a number of reasons. First, in both content and style, it bears a striking resemblance to Friedman's own writing. In fact, minus the quotation marks, it could pass for any of the eight trillion columns Friedman has churned out in the past decade about the urgent need to reduce oil consumption and promote alternative energy. To wit:<br /><br /><blockquote>This isn’t BP’s or Transocean’s fault. It’s not the government’s fault. It’s my fault. I’m the one to blame and I’m sorry. It’s my fault because I haven’t digested the world’s in-your-face hints that maybe I ought to think about the future and change the unsustainable way I live my life. If the geopolitical, economic, and technological shifts of the 1990s didn’t do it; if the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 didn’t do it; if the current economic crisis didn’t do it; perhaps this oil spill will be the catalyst for me, as a citizen, to wean myself off of my petroleum-based lifestyle. ... Here’s the bottom line: If we want to end our oil addiction, we, as citizens, need to pony up: bike to work, plant a garden, do something.</blockquote><br /><br />Second, the name Mark Mykleby sounds made up. I don't know why, but it does. Certainly the alliteration has something to do with it. Add in the vague occupation description and the fact that he's writing letters to a tiny newspaper in South Carolina despite the fact that, if he works at the Pentagon, he must live in the D.C. area, and it's enough to raise eyebrows.<br /><br />I see two possibilities here:<br /><br />1) There is nobody named Mark Mykleby, and both the man and his letter are fictions of Friedman's imagination. It's possible that this letter actually appeared in the Beaufort Gazette, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that it was planted there by Friedman himself, writing under a psuedonym. This theory is strengthened by the fact that over the years, Friedman has penned a number of columns in which he pretends he's somebody else (like the U.S. President) and writes letters or speeches in their name. If so, this would represent a troubling but immensely exciting development. Though on the one hand it represents a serious breach of journalistic ethics, on the other hand I can't wait to see what exciting adventures Friedman has planned for his alternate persona. Come to think of it, alliterative names do seem to be popular choices for secret identities (see Parker, Peter and Banner, Bruce.)<br /><br />2) Friedman is telling the truth -- there is a person named Mark Mykleby, he does work at the Pentagon, he is friends with Friedman, and he did write this letter. This is also a troubling possibility, for two reasons. First, because it raises the prospect of an army of wannabe Friedmans roaming the land, flooding "Letters to the Editor" pages with derivative Friedman columns. Second, because it once again reinforces a puzzling tendency in Friedman's recent columns to rely on extended quotes from people who think and talk exactly like he does. (Those wishing for an in-depth look at this phenomenon should see the earlier post, "(See above).")<br /><br />The rest of the column is pretty standard late-Mannerist Friedman fare, detailing how the latest major news story is a crisis but also a moment of opportunity, and demonstrates the urgency of reducing our dependence on foreign oil, boosting American innovation and a bunch of other pet Friedman proposals that may or may not have anything to do with the major news story itself. <br /><br />Also amusing is the disembodied quote from "corporate strategy consultant" Peter Schwartz in the next-to-last paragraph. What's it doing there? Your guess is as good as mine.Zachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14623168160075378295noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797128193799064088.post-67629303507847731162010-06-01T17:36:00.000-07:002010-06-01T18:19:00.201-07:00Kids Say the Politically Profoundest ThingsHaving spent three summers as a camp counselor and one year as an elementary school teacher, I feel like I have at least a rudimentary understanding of the workings of the child mind. Which is why the following section of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/opinion/30friedman.html">the mustachioed marvel's latest column</a>, on the Gulf oil spill, struck me as so absurd:<br /><br /><blockquote>Answering those questions is the president’s great opportunity here, but he has to think like a kid. Kids get it. They ask: Why would we want to stay dependent on an energy source that could destroy so many birds, fish, beaches and ecosystems before the next generation has a chance to enjoy them? Why aren’t we doing more to create clean power and energy efficiency when so many others, even China, are doing so? And, Daddy, why can’t you even mention the words “carbon tax,” when the carbon we spill into the atmosphere every day is just as dangerous to our future as the crude oil that has been spilling into the gulf?<br /><br />That is what a child would want to know if he or she could vote.</blockquote><br />Granted, I haven't spent much time discussing the oil spill with twelve-year-olds. But I'd be willing to bet that very, very few of them have spent the last couple weeks pondering the politics of a carbon tax or the dangers of falling behind the Chinese in the race to develop clean energy technologies. And I can guarantee you that those are NOT the questions a child would want to want to ask if he or she could vote. Instead, those questions would probably be things like: "Are you in favor of extending recess?" "Do you think there should be more ice cream in school lunches?" and "Would you consider appointing Justin Bieber to a seat on the Supreme Court?"<br /><br />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. (See Nixon, Richard M.: "Silent Majority.") This despite that fact that the rationale for doing so might be pretty thin -- keep in mind that here, what prompted this summary of kid public opinion was a single question from Malia Obama about whether her dad had plugged the oil leak. Let's hope Bo doesn't bark disapprovingly when he sees video of the leak on television, lest we find Friedman boasting that the dogs are behind him, too.Zachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14623168160075378295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797128193799064088.post-89952605384201768582010-05-01T21:28:00.000-07:002010-05-01T22:02:22.343-07:00"(See above)"Regular readers of Tom's columns may have noticed a curious trend in the mustachioed marvel's recent oeuvre — the inclusion of quotes from his conversation partners restating points he's already made, often in the exact same terms. A prime example of this can be found towards the bottom of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/opinion/02friedman.html?hp">today's column</a>, which discusses Mexican politics. <br /><br />Why bother presenting quotes that don't add a thing to what you've already said? I see a number of possible explanations: 1) It's an easy way for him to fill space. This theory is strengthened by the fact that he's quite clearly been phoning it in for the last several years. 2) He recognizes that the chattering class has begun to lose faith in him, and he's afraid that unless he provides evidence that somebody else actually agrees, we won't believe him. This theory is strengthened by the fact that the increase in redundant quotes has occurred at the same time as the emergence of widespread Friedman mockery. However, this theory presumes a level of self-awareness on Tom's part that I doubt exists. 3) It's a way of giving shout-outs (shouts-out?) to his buddies, in hopes that by keeping them happy, he can keep getting them to give him ideas for his columns. The problem here is that by making it so transparent that he's getting all his ideas from other people, he risks further deterioration of his own reputation.<br /><br />Rest assured that we here at Mustache of Understanding will be scouring future columns for evidence that could shed more light on this issue. In the meantime, I'd like to give it a try myself:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"After Tom Friedman makes points in his column, a lot of times he feels that he needs to have a quote from somebody he met at a party or something that restates what he just wrote," said somebody I just met at a cocktail party. "Really, it's irritating."Zachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14623168160075378295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797128193799064088.post-71254905626506099452010-04-25T20:37:00.001-07:002010-04-25T20:48:13.404-07:00The Tom Friedman Pet Cause PartyFriedman begins <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/opinion/25friedman.html?hp">today's column </a>by saying that he's been trying to learn more about the Tea Party Movement. He then goes on to demonstrate that he knows nothing about the Tea Party Movement, urging it to basically drop its entire agenda and turn itself into the Tom Friedman Pet Cause Party. <br /><br />Granted, the name he comes up with — Green Tea Party — is cute, but that doesn't make his effort to take a column about the Tea Party and turn it into a manifesto for his own pet cause any less lazy or self-aggrandizing. And why not an Herbal Tea Party to support marijuana legalization? Or a Black Tea Party to defend civil rights? You're not the only one who can come up with cutesy names, Tom!Zachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14623168160075378295noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797128193799064088.post-58612672131459083212010-04-21T20:03:00.001-07:002010-04-21T21:31:54.861-07:00Putt puttAs any regular reader of the mustachioed marvel's columns is sure to suspect, the man has clearly been phoning it in for quite some time now. However, even by the sorry standards of Tom's recent work, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/opinion/21friedman.html">today's column</a> stands out as an exceptionally lazy effort.<br /><br />Friedman starts out with an anecdote from a golf clinic he attended this past winter, describing how working on his putting and chipping had the unintended effect of improving his long game, as well. Thankfully, he quickly answers the obvious question this story raises: How the hell does this relate to anything other than this man's bourgeois pastimes and stunning lack of inspiration when it comes to thinking up metaphors?<br /><br />Well, you see, by passing comprehensive health care reform, Barack Obama also strengthened his hand in foreign policy. Two issues with this metaphor come to mind. First, Tom, how did working on your putting and chipping also improve your long game? I'm not a golfer, so forgive me if I'm missing something, but I don't see an obvious connection. I used to be a kick-ass mini-golfer, but that skill definitely didn't translate into being able to hit a 300-yard tee shot straight down the fairway. Second, how exactly is comprehensive health care reform the political equivalent of putting and chipping? Correct me if I'm wrong, but putts and chip shots are the shortest shots in the game -- the small stuff, the finishing touches. By contrast, this bill was the centerpiece of the president's entire domestic agenda. <br /><br />But OK, I'll bite. Next question: How does passage of a health care bill bring Obama foreign policy benefits? Fortunately, the mustachioed marvel has another metaphor at the ready, in the form of a quote from Osama bin Laden: "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse." Yes, you read that correctly -- apparently when Tom can't get a hold of Nandan Nilekani or Dov Seidman for a snappy quote supporting his views, number three on the speed dial turns out to be none other than the infamous terrorist mastermind. Friedman presents this quote with absolutely nothing in the way of context, leaving us to assume that bin Laden was one of his partners at the aforementioned golf clinic.<br /><br />The logic goes something like this: Heads of state across the world keep close tabs on American domestic politics, and when the president scores a major legislative victory, they realize that the president is strong, which makes them more likely to do what he wants; by contrast, when the president suffers a major legislative defeat, foreign leaders are more willing to defy him. This is a plausible argument and could make for an interesting debate. Personally, I think Friedman is vastly overstating his case (even though, if true, it would have the welcome side-effect of allowing us to say that by opposing health care reform, Republicans were working to embolden America's enemies). Call me crazy, but I just don't see the following conversation taking place in Tehran:<br /><br />Ahmadinejad: "The U.S. Senate used an obscure parliamentary procedure known as budget reconciliation to pass a bill reforming the American health insurance system."<br /><br />Ayatollah Khamenei: "Shut down the reactors."<br /><br />In fairness to Tom, he does have a couple quotes from Defense Secretary Robert Gates restating his point. However, uncritically accepting quotes from people more powerful than him has gotten Friedman into trouble before. (See Nilekani, Nandan -- "world is flat" quote.) <br /><br />Finally, before you even know what hit you, Friedman takes the column and turns it into a rallying cry for every policy initiative he's been pushing for the last five years, cutting and pasting his standard boilerplate about entrepreneurship, information technology, infrastructure, immigration and deficit reduction, with a reference to "soft power" thrown in for good measure. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the last four paragraphs of this column are the auto-signature on the bottom of Tom's e-mails.Zachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14623168160075378295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797128193799064088.post-54679319202609469702010-04-11T12:24:00.000-07:002010-04-11T12:30:59.052-07:00"Gang of Four Techs"Forbes Magazine's Beijing correspondent Gady Epstein has posted <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/09/hu-jintao-friedman-obama-opinions-beijing-dispatch.html?feed=rss_opinions">an entertaining piece</a> in which he pens a mock Friedman column offering advice to Chinese President Hu Jintao on his upcoming visit to Washington. It's highly amusing, and the man clearly has a solid understanding of the finer points of Friedman style. However, efforts like this always run into the same problem — how do you parody somebody who <span style="font-style:italic;">already is</span> a parody?Zachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14623168160075378295noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797128193799064088.post-83089453173567879252010-04-07T12:28:00.000-07:002010-04-07T18:52:24.006-07:00He's No ExpertWhen I pulled up <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/opinion/07friedman.html?hp">our hero's column </a>this morning and saw that it began "I'm no expert on ... ", I was filled with excitement. What would the end of that sentence be? "The judicious use of metaphors"? "Understanding the limits of American power"? "Leading a lifestyle that conforms to the low-carbon gospel I preach?" My mind raced as I considered the possibilities. <br /><br />The full sentence turned out to be: "I'm no expert on American politics, but I do know something about holes." Later on in the paragraph, he shows us just how much of an expert on holes he is, sharing his "first rule of holes": "When you're in one, stop digging." <br /><br />OK, two things, Tom. First, if you're no expert on American politics, then WHY HAVE YOU BEEN WRITING COLUMN AFTER COLUMN ABOUT IT IN THE PAGES OF THE NATION'S MOST PRESTIGIOUS NEWSPAPER FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS?????? And not just writing columns, but publishing books, appearing on television and giving lectures all over country? It'd be one thing for Friedman, who doesn't have an MD, to say, "I'm no expert on open-heart surgery" before offering a thought or two on the subject. Similarly, it'd be OK for a heart surgeon to say, "I'm no expert on American politics" before making an off-hand remark. However, this is the equivalent of the heart surgeon saying, "I'm no expert on open-heart surgery" before picking up a scalpel and cutting somebody open. If you're no expert on open-heart surgery, then how did you get a job as a surgeon? And why are you about to operate on that guy???<br /><br />(Did you see what I did there? I used the power of metaphors to make my point more vivid. That's right, Tom -- two can play at this game ...)<br /><br />Second, an expert on "holes"? Seriously? What the hell does that even mean? (There are any number of raunchy, off-color jokes that I could make here, but I'll leave you to your imaginations.) Also, if somebody is in a hole with a shovel, isn't it quite likely that he wanted to dig a hole in the first place? If not, why did he get a shovel and start digging? I get the point, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for internal consistency in a metaphor's logic.<br /><br />I know what you're thinking -- that this is just a throw-away opening, a way for Tom to come off as folksy and self-deprecating. Yes, that's quite possibly the case. But it doesn't make it any less dumb. Moreover, the rest of the column really does drive home the point that Friedman probably isn't qualified to be writing about American politics for the New York Times. In it, he argues that we're seeing the emergence of a new electoral bloc -- the "Newocracy" (clever, huh?) -- composed of managers of multinational corporations, technology entrepreneurs and "aspirational members of the meritocracy," which I guess means high school seniors applying to Ivy League colleges, or something. Perhaps unsurprisingly, he makes this argument without citing a shred of opinion polling or empirical data, instead relying on a series of quotes repeating his main points from some Baruch College professor named Edward Goldberg.<br /><br />Like all readers, I eagerly await the unveiling of Tom's remaining "rules of holes."Zachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14623168160075378295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797128193799064088.post-24895798675325671332010-03-26T21:32:00.000-07:002010-03-26T21:51:59.010-07:00The Gospel of Innovation: A Skeptic's TakeA good friend of mine who works in business in Singapore (how's that for a Friedman-esque lead-in?) sent along <a href="http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2010/03/the_innovation/">this piece</a> from <span style="font-style:italic;">The Washington Note</span>, in which former IBM executive Ralph Gomory takes on the Friedmanian mantra that the United States has to build its economy around innovation and R&D, because we can't compete with low-wage countries such as India and China in manufacturing and low-level service industries.<br /><br />Truth be told, Gomory's argument engages in a good amount of straw-manning, and unfortunately it's devoid of the snarkiness that Friedman critiques cry out for. Nevertheless, we at The Mustache of Understanding applaud all Friedman take-downs, no matter how flawed or how dull.Zachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14623168160075378295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797128193799064088.post-71777580183033868652010-03-08T18:33:00.000-08:002010-03-08T18:58:42.840-08:00A Contempt that Crosses Party LinesAs a hardcore liberal and unashamed Obama lover, it's not every day that I enthusiastically recommend an article from the <span style="font-style:italic;">National Review</span>, the biweekly conservative political magazine founded by William F. Buckley, Jr. However, a good Friedman take-down is a good Friedman take-down, regardless of where it comes from. <br /><br />In "<a href="http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=ZTMzZTc3YWQ5MTgzN2I1MTIwN2QyYWFlYTY4NDg5NmY=">Friedman Aflame</a>," Jonah Goldberg — the <span style="font-style:italic;">National Review </span> editor best known for his <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841">500-page bestseller</a> calling liberals fascists — takes the mustachioed marvel to task for his mind-bending mixed metaphors, shameless self-promotion and barely concealed admiration for the Chinese Communist Party, among other things. The piece lacks the wit and pizzazz of Matt Taibi's pioneering works, but the underlying sentiment is the same.<br /><br />Although the anti-Friedman polemics continue to pile up, it remains to be seen whether the collective scorn of the chattering class will do anything to knock Friedman off his perch as one of the nation's foremost opinion-makers. Nevertheless, word is out — the columnist has no clothes.<br /><br />(Note: To those readers for whom the above analogy conjured up an image of Friedman naked, I offer my wholehearted apologies.)Zachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14623168160075378295noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797128193799064088.post-49040872134868078722010-02-10T20:55:00.000-08:002010-02-10T21:46:27.931-08:00The World is QatGiven the outlandish analogizing the mustachioed marvel is capable of when he's stone-cold sober, just imagine the absurdities that must issue from this man's mouth when he's on hallucinogens!<br /><br />His <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/opinion/10friedman.html">latest column</a>, from Yemen.<br /><br />So, this blog has been on a fairly long hiatus, and in the meantime, much of note has transpired in Friedman Land. For example, he wrote this, which is silly:<br /><br /><blockquote>Our economy is still very fragile, yet you would never know that by the way the political class is acting. We’re like a patient that just got out of intensive care and is sitting up in bed for the first time when, suddenly, all the doctors and nurses at bedside start bickering. One of them throws a stethoscope across the room; someone else threatens to unplug all the monitors unless the hospital bills are paid by noon; and all the while the patient is thinking: “Are you people crazy? I am just starting to recover. Do you realize how easily I could relapse? Aren’t there any adults here?”</blockquote><br /><br />Yes, we're <span style="font-style:italic;">just like that!</span> Because it's a situation that happens <span style="font-style:italic;">so often</span> that we can all <span style="font-style:italic;">immediately</span> relate to and understand it. Great analogy, Tom!<br /><br />And he also wrote <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/opinion/17friedman.html">this</a>, which is wrong:<br /><br /><blockquote>For decades, this was considered the most dangerous place on earth, with Taiwan and China pointing missiles at each other on hair triggers. Well, over the past two years, China and Taiwan have reached a quiet rapprochement — on their own.</blockquote><br /><br />Tom, those missiles are still there! What's more, they're actually <span style="font-style:italic;">increasing</span> in number, as <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0627_cross_strait_relations_bush.aspx">this recent report</a> from Brookings makes clear.<br /><br />And then there's this, from the same column:<br /><br /><blockquote> Taiwan has no oil, no natural resources. It’s a barren rock with 23 million people who, through hard work, have amassed the fourth-largest foreign currency reserves in the world. They got rich digging inside themselves, unlocking their entrepreneurs, not digging for oil. They took responsibility. They got rich by asking: “How do I improve myself?” Not by declaring: “It’s all somebody else’s fault. Give me a handout.”</blockquote><br /><br />... which is slightly misleading, given that 1) although it isn't sitting on a giant pool of oil, Taiwan is a lush tropical island with a vibrant agricultural industry and can hardly be described as a "barren rock," and 2) the KMT actually <span style="font-style:italic;">did</span> benefit from some major handouts, by declaring, "The Communists want to invade. Give me billions of dollars in economic and military aid and favorable access to U.S. markets."<br /><br />And folks, I can't emphasize this enough — this is the stuff he comes up with when he's <span style="font-style:italic;">not</span> on Yemeni hallucinogens ...Zachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14623168160075378295noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797128193799064088.post-911363946734371532009-09-23T06:11:00.000-07:002009-09-23T06:12:33.935-07:00The new Cold War ... from Team America (really, he calls it that)From <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/14/friedman/">Glen Greenwald</a>, we learn more of TF's latest war:<br /><br /><blockquote>So congratulations to us. After years of desperately searching, we've finally found our New Soviet Union. Nay-saying opponents of the New War (those who Tom Friedman, <a target="_blank" href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E1D8153EF931A25750C0A9659C8B63">in March of 2003</a>, dismissed as "knee-jerk liberals and pacifists") may try to point out that it's a country whose defense spending is <a target="_blank" href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm"><b>less than 1% of our own</b></a>, has never invaded another country, and could not possibly threaten us, but those are just small details. Iran is our new implacable foe in Tom Friedman's glorious, transcendent struggle -- which, in 2003, on NPR, he called "the beginning of World War III . . . the third great totalitarian challenge in the last, you know, 60 years," and which he today defines this way (featuring an amazingly disingenuous use of parenthesis):</blockquote>SJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10616456946599270375noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797128193799064088.post-15381928436542433582009-09-12T15:00:00.000-07:002009-09-12T20:04:00.727-07:00Autocracy's newest fanGood news! Three months after this fine blog fell by the wayside, the mustachioed marvel has managed to write something dumb enough to shock it back into existence. The offending paragraph, from his latest column, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/opinion/09friedman.html?_r=1&em">"Our One-Party Democracy"</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China’s leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.</blockquote><br />Yes, you read that correctly. Thomas Friedman -- the neo-liberal, free-market crusader who not so long ago could be found championing a disastrous invasion designed to spread liberty and democracy -- has morphed into a cheerleader for the CCP, an authoritarian party presiding over a brutally repressive political system and an economy that features no small measure of state intervention.<br /><br />For starters, praising the Chinese Communist Party for its farsightedness on environmental matters is patently absurd. Granted, 2007 was a long time ago, but you'd think that Friedman might still remember <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html">"Choking on Growth,"</a> a major series his own newspaper ran that year chronicling the tremendous damage China's economic development policies have done to the country's air and water, and the dire consequences this environmental degradation has for public health. Sure, the one-party system makes it relatively easy for the central government to mobilize resources and pour a few billion dollars into electric car research or its renewable energy industry, but the other side of the coin is that China's top-down, development-oriented political system is so riddled with corruption and dysfunction that the government has a hard time enforcing even the most basic environmental regulations at the local level.<br /><br />More important, of course, is the fact that the "drawbacks" of one-party autocracy that Friedman makes passing reference to include things like, oh, I don't know, the near total absence of freedoms of expression, assembly, petition, religion and so on. If China's leaders are really the "reasonably enlightened group of people" Friedman claims, then I suppose it's a bit curious that they've chosen to reject virtually every political value the Enlightenment stood for, and to preside over a tightly-controlled media and education system that attempts to keep the population in a permanent state of dis-enlightenment as to the history and functioning of their own society. And that's not even to mention the regime's management of its ethnic minorities, an area in which it continues to operate largely on a model adopted from Stalinist Russia.<br /><br />So, to recap: Authoritarian rulers like Saddam Hussein, who jail dissidents and deny basic freedoms to their people? Targets for regime change. Authoritarian rulers like Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao, who jail dissidents, deny basic freedoms to their people ... and build solar panel factories? Targets for Friedman's affections.Zachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14623168160075378295noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797128193799064088.post-74438060205902784892009-06-08T11:09:00.000-07:002009-06-08T11:57:48.999-07:00Friedman Returns!After a hiatus of more than a month (not book-leave, one must hope), Friedman has been up to his usual hijinks lately, dropping two columns within the last week about the Middle East.<br /><br />Yesterday's column, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/opinion/07friedman.html">"After Cairo, It's Clinton Time,"</a> is grating for two reasons, the first somewhat trivial, the second somewhat not.<br /><br />Devoted Friedman followers might recall that in 2003, the mustachioed marvel appeared on Charlie Rose to deliver his <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOF6ZeUvgXs">in-your-face message</a> to America's enemies in Iraq: "Suck. On. This." Well, six years later, Friedman apparently has still not gotten it into his head that the trash-talking is best left for the basketball court (or, in Friedman equivalent, the putting green or tennis court). Reviewing the bloody civil conflict that broke out in the vacuum created by the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, Friedman writes: <blockquote>Liberated from Saddam's iron fist, each Iraqi community tested its strength against the others, saying in effect: "Show me what you got, baby."</blockquote> I don't know how many Times editors signed off on that "baby," but if there was ever a single word that was more badly in need of being cut, I can't think of it.<br /><br />The more troubling element of the column comes in the sixth paragraph, when Friedman writes: <blockquote>I have never bought the argument that Iraq was the bad war, Afghanistan the good war and Pakistan the necessary war. Folks, they’re all one war with different fronts. It’s a war within the Arab-Muslim world between progressive and anti-modernist forces over how this faith community is going to adapt to modernity — modern education, consensual politics, the balance between religion and state and the rights of women.</blockquote> A most interesting interpretation, there. (And a very convenient one, for a prominent cheerleader of the Iraq invasion.) <br /><br />Yup, that's right folks -- the war in Iraq isn't one that we started, based on false intelligence and crackpot visions of transforming the country into a beacon of democracy and progressivism. Instead, it's more like it was already going on, and we just kind of jumped in on the side of the good guys. And what about the Iraq war pulling resources away from the mission in Afghanistan? Nope, folks -- all the same war, can't think about it like that.<br /><br />Tom, Tom, Tom -- it's six years later, the near-universal consensus among pretty much every human being on the planet is that the invasion was a gigantic mistake, and a terrible way to go about reforming the Arab world ... maybe it's about time you dropped the charade and just admitted it?Zachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14623168160075378295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797128193799064088.post-70430518936389591612009-04-28T22:24:00.000-07:002009-04-28T23:00:37.892-07:00Friedman Comes Out Against Torture, Logical ConsistencyTake a look at <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/opinion/29friedman.html?_r=1">today's column</a>. If anyone can find a coherent position on torture, or the war on terror, or Iraq, or anything at all, for that matter, please let me know, because I sure as hell can't. <br /><br />Friedman's columns are often vapid, and cliched, and grating, and self-serving, but I'll at least give him this — they're usually pretty clear: We need a carbon tax. We should invest more in science. We should grant more visas to highly educated immigrants. We should invade Iraq and turn it into a beacon of progressivism and democracy. Yada yada yada.<br /><br />This column, by contrast, is a logical mess. As I understand it, Friedman's position is as follows: Torture is wrong. Obama was right to ban it. Bush Administration officials crossed the line, and members of the military murdered detainees. However, al Qaeda is really, really evil, and terrorists want to kill lots of people, and don't love their children, and they were maybe planning to use weapons of mass destruction. So the rules are different, and we shouldn't prosecute Bush Administration officials. Also, it would be politically divisive, and apparently bipartisanship now ranks above the rule of law and morality on the list of things we should be concerned about upholding. <br /><br />Oh, and if you thought that defeating al Qaeda in Iraq would make America safer, you were wrong. Because victory in Iraq is actually going to increase the likelihood of a terrorist attack on American soil. Why? Because it's like a Hail Mary pass. And you can't argue with a sports metaphor.Zachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14623168160075378295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797128193799064088.post-23576237435267648872009-04-01T21:36:00.000-07:002009-04-01T22:23:18.522-07:00Everybody! Over here! Look at me!Remember that system of freewheeling global capitalism Thomas Friedman spent the better part of his career championing? Well, it recently drove the world economy off a cliff. So what's the solution? Did you guess fundamental reform of global finance? Good work — but that's only half the answer. What's the other half? Well, it's none other than the same set of environmental policies Friedman has been peddling in his books, columns, lectures and neighborhood grocery store (probably) for the last five or six years.<br /><br />Yes, in a clever sleight of hand in his <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/opinion/01friedman.html?ref=opinion">most recent column</a>, Friedman manages to recast the financial meltdown as a desperate plea from Mother Nature to reduce carbon emissions. Don't get me wrong — I'm a firm supporter of reducing carbon emissions and protecting the environment. But in the true Friedman spirit of colorful if tortured analogies, isn't this a bit like KFC trying to convince us that the economic crisis is a clear indication that we all need to be eating a lot more fried chicken, or Billy Blanks trying to convince us that the only road to economic recovery is for everyone to start doing Tae Bo?Zachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14623168160075378295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797128193799064088.post-43242505730312618222009-03-30T16:41:00.001-07:002009-03-30T16:42:15.600-07:00Anti-mustache propaganda<a href="http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/03/04/thomas-friedman-gets-the-fjm-treatment/">Some people</a> do not appreciate TF's penetrating insights. Their loss. But I will say that the mustache will prevail. He always prevails.<br /><br />Hat-tip to SC.SJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10616456946599270375noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797128193799064088.post-44088790856011006362009-03-21T18:23:00.000-07:002009-03-21T19:18:59.686-07:00High Mannerism in the Work of FriedmanFor someone who frequently extols the virtues of innovation, Thomas Friedman's columns often take a staggeringly unoriginal form. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/opinion/22friedman.html">Today's column</a>, about the recession, is a prime example of what might be called the mustachioed marvel's High Mannerist period.<br /><br />What follows is the outline of many a Friedman column in recent years. Seriously, you could probably program a computer to write these things.<br /><br />**************************<br /><br />"Are we all crazy?"<br />By Thomas L. Friedman<br /><br />The other day, I was talking with my friend from (name of a somewhat exotic Third World country), and he told me something striking: "(Quote that expresses bafflement at some aspect of American politics or society.)"<br /><br />Really, folks — have we completely lost our minds? Our politicians are all acting like children. Can you believe how stupid they are? <br /><br />I fear for future generations. Folks, we need to get this country back on track. And we can easily do that if we heed my advice and (painfully obvious policy proposal, almost certainly involving renewable energy, training more scientists or a return to America's classic values, vaguely defined). If we don't do it soon, it might be too late.<br /><br />"(Quote that basically restates everything Friedman just talked about)," said (some quasi-public figure and good friend of Friedman's, likely to be Johns Hopkins international affairs scholar Michael Mandelbaum or entrepreneur Dov Seidman). "(Quote that once again basically restates everything Friedman said above, only in slightly different way.)"<br /><br />But I'm optimistic here. Because after all, this is America, the country that (brief, inspirational recap of America's past accomplishments).<br /><br />************************<br /><br />And there you have it. Just master this simple outline, and you can try writing your very own Friedman columns at home!Zachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14623168160075378295noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797128193799064088.post-32532370827327097692009-03-08T21:46:00.000-07:002009-03-09T12:45:06.384-07:00Lazy SundayTo be sure, the mustachioed marvel isn't known for wearing out the old shoe leather. As he told the <span style="font-style:italic;">New Yorker</span> back in November, "I write my books by writing my books ... I don't start with six months of research." However, even by Friedman's own standards, his last two columns have demonstrated a degree of laziness that would make even the most shameless high school slacker cringe.<br /><br />First, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/opinion/04friedman.html">on Wednesday</a>, Friedman made not one, but two points for which the principal evidence was the ordering of suggestions in the Google drop-down search box:<br /><br />1) "Go to Google and type in these four letters: m-e-r-e. Before you go any further, Google will list the possible things or people you’re searching for, and at the top of that list will be the name “Meredith Whitney.” She comes up before “merengue” and “Meredith Viera.” Who is Meredith Whitney? She is a banking analyst who became famous for declaring last year, long before others, that Citigroup was up to its neck in bad mortgages and would not likely survive in its present form. Do you know how many people have to be searching for you if all you have to do is put in four letters and your name pops up first? A lot!"<br /><br />Do you know how much gall it takes to submit a column to the most highly respected newspaper on the planet that makes arguments based on such trivial facts? A lot!<br /><br />Friedman concludes Wednesday's column with this stunning discovery:<br /><br />2) "For now, though, the banks still threaten to consume the Obama presidency. Indeed, I’m sorry to report that if you just type two letters into Google — “b-a” — the first thing that comes up is not Barack Obama. It’s “Bank of America.” Barack Obama is third."<br /><br />But good news, everyone! I'm happy to report that if you just type two letters into Google — "d-e" — the first thing that comes up is not depression. It's Dell, as in the computer company. Depression is eighth. The economy's going to be all right, after all!<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/opinion/08friedman.html">Sunday's column</a>, meanwhile, leads off with a full paragraph from an Onion article, to illustrate a point about American consumer excess. Tom, I'm not telling you that you're not allowed to engage in Internet procrastination. It's something we all do, from time to time. It's just that, well, it's probably best to avoid drawing attention to it. At least get out of the office and talk to a cabbie, or something.Zachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14623168160075378295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797128193799064088.post-83689287053103095972009-03-07T08:42:00.000-08:002009-03-07T08:43:11.552-08:00Tom's speaking fees fall; mustache in peril?<div class="entry-body"><div><div class="item-body"><div><p>"To explain how dire the economic situation is right now, one could mention <a target="_blank" href="http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200903051810DOWJONESDJONLINE001078_FORTUNE5.htm">General Motors</a>, or bring up <a target="_blank" href="http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200903051322DOWJONESDJONLINE000965_FORTUNE5.htm">General Electric</a>, or, hey, there's always the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm">latest jobs report</a>. </p><p>The following tidbit of information, however, suggests how serious things really are:</p><ul><li>Based on data <strike>obtained from dinner chit-chat</strike> painstakingly gathered throughout the day, it appears that <a target="_blank" href="http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/">Thomas Friedman</a>'s speaking fees have recently fallen by 25%.</li></ul><p>Of course, this could be because <a target="_blank" href="http://www.grabow.biz/Speakers/Tom-Friedman.htm">his speaker profile</a> is a bit out of date."</p><p>From Dan Drezner's blog.<br /></p></div></div></div></div>SJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10616456946599270375noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797128193799064088.post-3916564820714708712009-01-24T22:34:00.000-08:002009-01-24T22:56:16.908-08:00Mixed Metaphor #45,812Is it possible that Thomas Friedman mistakes Matt Taibbi's blistering criticism for praise? Not one week after Taibbi's smackdown of the mustachioed marvel for his reliance on nonsensical mixed metaphors, Friedman gives us the following gem in his latest column:<br /><blockquote>We’re getting perilously close to closing the window on a two-state solution, because the two chief window-closers — Hamas in Gaza and the fanatical Jewish settlers in the West Bank — have been in the driver’s seats. Hamas is busy making a two-state solution inconceivable, while the settlers have steadily worked to make it impossible.</blockquote>So, the window is a car window? And not just any car window — but a window in a car with two driver's seats? And these two driver's seats are being occupied by sworn enemies, presumably working at cross purposes? How does that work? OK, so Hamas and the Jewish settlers are driving along, slowly rolling up the window. But won't this just leave them trapped in the car together? Why does either one of them want that? Or maybe there are two separate cars, and Hamas and the settlers drive them to where the window is, and then close it together?Zachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14623168160075378295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797128193799064088.post-78281631062661031062009-01-17T10:33:00.000-08:002009-01-17T11:05:34.032-08:00Taibbi does it againWhen it comes to poking fun at Thomas Friedman, we here at Mustache of Understanding remain mere amateurs when compared to Matt Taibbi, whose 2005 takedown of Friedman in the New York <span style="font-style:italic;">Press</span> remains by far the finest work in the genre. And now he's done it again. Taibbi's earlier piece, "Flathead," came on the heels of the publication of Friedman's last book, <span style="font-style:italic;">The Word Is Flat</span>. His latest anti-Friedman rant, "Flat N All That," takes on the mustachioed marvel's newest collection of mixed metaphors, non sequiturs and self-aggrandizing anecdotes, <span style="font-style:italic;">Hot, Flat and Crowded</span>. I'm tempted to provide you with all my favorite lines, but I'd highly encourage you to read it all for yourself. It's just that brilliant. (You can find it <a href="http://www.nypress.com/article-19271-flat-n-all-that.html">here</a>.) <br /><br />Well, OK, one quick teaser:<br /><blockquote>Just when you begin to lose faith in America’s ability to fall for absolutely anything—just when you begin to think we Americans as a race might finally outgrow the lovable credulousness that leads us to fork over our credit card numbers to every half-baked TV pitchman hawking a magic dick-enlarging pill, or a way to make millions on the Internet while sitting at home and pounding doughnuts— along comes Thomas Friedman, porn-stached resident of a positively obscene 114,000 square foot suburban Maryland mega-monstro-mansion and husband to the heir of one of the largest shopping-mall chains in the world, reinventing himself as an oracle of anti-consumerist conservationism. </blockquote><br />All right — one more, because I just can't help myself:<br /><blockquote>How about Friedman’s analysis of America’s foreign policy outlook last May: "The first rule of holes is when you’re in one, stop digging. When you’re in three, bring a lot of shovels.” First of all, how can any single person be in three holes at once? Secondly, what the fuck is he talking about? If you’re supposed to stop digging when you’re in one hole, why should you dig more in three? How does that even begin to make sense? It’s stuff like this that makes me wonder if the editors over at the New York Times editorial page spend their afternoons dropping acid or drinking rubbing alcohol. Sending a line like that into print is the journalism equivalent of a security guard at a nuke plant waving a pair of mullahs in explosive vests through the front gate. It should never, ever happen. </blockquote>Zachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14623168160075378295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797128193799064088.post-56498407509116994052009-01-17T07:26:00.000-08:002009-01-17T07:29:31.501-08:00Get your mustache on<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwf3aqdY8vFvO5jD6QSPIG1qpG9OM55OiQf3HggBaCbnSEEoUgjBOyikwh04eRURqFG_zpnBomML_SS4ftfYDGNI6DLvfk1Az9xE9szIafO-7zAVZPyTjUqwm6uumTwqhcGWrRvEyzNEc/s1600-h/blog_friedman.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 303px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwf3aqdY8vFvO5jD6QSPIG1qpG9OM55OiQf3HggBaCbnSEEoUgjBOyikwh04eRURqFG_zpnBomML_SS4ftfYDGNI6DLvfk1Az9xE9szIafO-7zAVZPyTjUqwm6uumTwqhcGWrRvEyzNEc/s400/blog_friedman.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5292285047502901042" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />By<a href="http://www.mnftiu.cc/"> David Rees</a>.SJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10616456946599270375noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797128193799064088.post-88910833909782772042009-01-13T21:51:00.000-08:002009-01-13T22:01:45.755-08:00The Jihad Is FlatScore 10 points for Friedman in the "slipping my pet concept into the discussion of everything" category. From his <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/opinion/14friedman.html?_r=1">latest missive</a>:<br /><br />"Hezbollah’s unprovoked attack from Lebanon into Israel in 2006 both undermined the argument that withdrawal led to security and presented Israel with a much more vexing military strategy aimed at neutralizing Israel’s military superiority. <span style="font-style:italic;">Hezbollah created a very “flat” military network</span>, built on small teams of guerrillas and mobile missile-batteries, deeply embedded in the local towns and villages."<br /><br />Dell call centers in India. China's entry into the WTO. Hezbollah military strategy. Don't you fools see?! It's all connected! To the Flat Cave, Robin!Zachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14623168160075378295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797128193799064088.post-30729204070052458122009-01-12T16:29:00.001-08:002009-01-12T16:29:59.483-08:00"When metaphors attack"From <a href="http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=01&year=2009&base_name=when_metaphors_attack">Ezra Klein</a>:<br /><p></p><blockquote><p>There are days when Thomas Friedman seems to be writing his <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/opinion/11friedman.html?_r=1">columns</a> just to screw with <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nypress.com/article-11419-flathead.html">Matt Taibbi's head</a>. To wit:<br /></p><blockquote>Over the next couple of years, two very big countries, America and China, will give birth to something very important. They’re each going to give birth to close to $1 trillion worth of economic stimulus — in the form of tax cuts, infrastructure, highways, mass transit and new energy systems. But a lot is riding on these two babies. If China and America each give birth to a pig — a big, energy-devouring, climate-spoiling stimulus hog — our kids are done for. It will be the burden of their lifetimes. If they each give birth to a gazelle — a lean, energy-efficient and innovation-friendly stimulus — it will be the opportunity of their lifetimes.</blockquote></blockquote>SJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10616456946599270375noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797128193799064088.post-13667581412173422682008-12-24T08:13:00.000-08:002008-12-24T09:32:24.687-08:00The Friedman FallacyTom's <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/opinion/24friedman.html?_r=1">latest dispatch</a> — another one from the "America is so dumb, but if we make these buzzwords and cliches the centerpieces of our national agenda, we might just turn this thing around" category — features a prime example of what will henceforth be referred to as the Friedman Fallacy. <br /><br />To be sure, Friedman is correct — places like Hong Kong, Beijing, Singapore and Tokyo generally put the U.S. to shame when it comes to public infrastructure. However, what the Friedman Fallacy refers to is the columnist's unfortunate tendency, when visiting foreign countries, to spend most, if not all, of his time in the most developed, cosmopolitan cities — and, within those cities, most likely spend most, if not all, of his time in cushy hotels and conference rooms, interacting with the best-educated, most cosmopolitan locals — and then generalize his impressions to the whole of said country. Witness how Friedman's trip to the Hong Kong airport at the beginning of the column later becomes "China may have great airports ..."<br /><br />Friedman's reporting on China is especially noteworthy on this point, as it often adopts the tone of "China has arrived! They're dominating us! Our roads and airports and cities can't compete! Start teaching your kids Chinese!" that one tends to find in the writing of Western journalists who parachute into the country for week-long stints in showcase cities along the coast. Tom has spent plenty of time filing breathless reports from Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Guangzhou, but he might leave with a different impression of the country's airports if he flew into, say, Lanzhou, a city of 3.5 million people in western China where the airport consists of a single-building, low-lying former military installation more than an hour outside of town, and he might leave with a different perception of the country's roads if spent some time traveling around Qinghai Province, where villages of subsistence farmers living in mud and stone huts without indoor plumbing are connected to the outside world only by pockmarked unpaved roads. <br /><br />Other things about China that Friedman rarely finds the space to mention include the fact that nobody, anywhere in the country, can drink the tap water, because it's far too polluted; the rampant corruption at all levels of government; the dire water shortage and desertification problem that threatens the livelihood of hundreds of millions of people in northern China; the tens of millions of migrant workers who live in tents next to construction sites in major coastal cities; the broken health care delivery system that makes America's look like Sweden's; the dramatically aging population that might put a brake on China's rapid economic growth; and the tens of thousands of "mass incidents" that occur every year in which rural inhabitants vent their anger against Communist Party corruption and land seizures by storming government offices and vandalizing public property — unrest that has lately begun to spread to manufacturing cities in the southeast, where China's implicit social contract of "We'll make you rich, you don't complain" appears to be fraying around the edges. Oh, and then there's the stuff like <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/world/asia/09china.html?_r=1">this</a>, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/23/world/asia/23china.html?scp=2&sq=China%20slave%20labor&st=cse">this</a> and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/world/asia/19milk.html?scp=5&sq=China%20milk%20scandal&st=cse">this</a>.<br /><br />But the man sure can turn a phrase, am I right?Zachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14623168160075378295noreply@blogger.com0