Hooray for Tom Friedman

Mr. Klein, Friedman makes a compelling argument, thank you.
.
Yet you and Friedman cannot simultaneously endorse an investment in green technologies AND the war in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, we are witnessing our government’s investment in oil- it is impossible to have it both ways.
.
I agree that we needed to dismantle al Qaeda encampments and deny their ability to plot attacks. But that mission, best achieved by aerial attack and quick-strike special-ops units, was accomplished a long time ago. Once we established boots-on-the-ground and began building permanent military infrastructure, the mission changed to performing constabulary duties in the oil producing regions of the world. You cannot argue that our attacks against the Taliban, a tribal group with no international aspirations, do not radicalize and de-stabilize the region. Therefore, our “surge” cannot be considered an effort to combat radical forces. It is Petrodollar warfare. Choose an investment.

JK:

The same Thomas Friedman that lives in a 11,400 square foot house which no doubt was made of recyled material and runs on solar and wind power? The same Thomas Friedman of the NYT that has been a huge critic of the auto industry and drum banger for unions?

You have to love folks like you and Tom who continue to tell people how they should live but those rules won’t apply to you.

Mr. Freidman is quick to tell American business how to run their companies. Maybe he should take the opportunity of a Sunday family dinner to share his wisdom with his wife’s family. She is the heir to Growth Properties )a REIT) that filed for bankruptcy. I am sure they could have used his advice. Actually they probably did.

He also rails about the need to preserve unions while his company the NYT threatened to close the Boston Globe if the unions did not give concessions. They are also outsouricing jobs to Florida for (wait for it) cheaper labor! The stalwart defenders of the working class seeking cheaper labor. That’s un-American isn’t it?

Here is a better idea. We should have a Journalist Stupidity Tax. Everytime a journalist says something stupid they get taxed. By the word would be appropriate. It is a win-win. Either journalists shut up or we end up with tons of revenues. Between you, Tom Friedman and Chrissy Matthews, I think we could fund health care and have money left over to develop alternative energy sources. Either case a positive for the American public.

How many centrists are going to need a bribe to do anything about this issue?

Dear fellow Swampers. I apologize that my initial comment serves to derail the thread- and it is a good topic. I felt compelled to pressure Klein into addressing the contradictory (IMO) nature of his posts. Perhaps I should have chosen a different time…
.
On-topic, I thought that this was the most pertinent section of Friedman’s article:
.
How long are we Americans going to go on thinking that we can thrive in the 21st century when doing the optimal things — whether for energy, health care, education or the deficit — are “off the table.” They’ve been banished by an ad hoc coalition of lobbyists loaded with money, loud-mouth talk-show hosts who will flame anyone who crosses them, political consultants who warn that asking Americans to do anything important but hard makes one unelectable and a citizenry that doesn’t even ask for optimal anymore because it believes that optimal is impossible.
.
Sorry, but there are no good ideas proven to work in other democratic/capitalist societies that we can afford to shove off our table — not when we need to build a knowledge economy with good jobs and everyone else is trying to do the same.
.

Funny that Denmark still uses dirty coal for their energy use…and they feel good about it huh? It would be better if the Danes shifted away completely from this most foul of fossil fuels.

Freidman is, of course a horrible source, even when he happens to be occasionally right about something. The larger issue is of course the tragedy (and it can only be described thusly) of energy taxes being ‘off the table’ As freep will gladly point out, government does not create wealth and often intereferes with those who do. What he will never mention, is that business cannot plan ahead for the common good and forgo profit in order to prevent calamity.

Even if we (as many do) pretend that Global warming isn’t a problem, it’s easy for anyone equipped with eyes to see that our reliance on Middle Eastern oil brings out levels of denial that would make a crack-addict proud.

How many progressives will it take to figure out they don’t actually get anything done?

Free: OMG, for the first time I agree with you. Friedman was constantly wrong on Iraq. Hence the term FU arose (Friedman Unit). His words alone on Iraq would fund HCR.

Freep, Fox would go out of business under your proposal.

I love it when you cheerlead for Thomas Friedman.

Finally, a concrete example of “the blind leading the blind.”

“How many progressives will it take to figure out they don’t actually get anything done?”
.
I don’t know, how many?
.
I take it your argument is action is it’s own justification? It doesn’t matter what the action actually is, or toward what ends it is directed, the overriding concern is that something, anything, be done, even if it causes damage.
.
That sounds like a Stalinist argument.

I’m sorry but that remark is just stupid. Just because Bush and his fellow neocons went into Iraq to make gains in the oil sector any dealings by anyone in this region is about oil? Give me a break! How easy it is to forget that after 9/11 no one in this country hesitated very much about going into Afghanistan and just because Bush dithered there for the last 8 years doesn’t mean that Obama should just walk away without regard to how that move would impact Pakistan. Frankly, I’d appreciate it if they made sure that the nukes over there were secure before they left the region to the Taliban.

I’m sorry, but Tom Friedman is one of those columnists who is so consistently useless, so frequently wrong, and so generally ignorant that even when he gets something right I wouldn’t link to him or read him. The intellectual calibre of punditry in the US would improve by several orders of magnitude if Friedman simply stopped writing, or people stopped publishing him. The former won’t happen, so the only other option is to use the free market he adores to demonstrate to publishers his writing isn’t worth the paper its written on, or the electrons on my computer screen for that matter.

As a postscript – I’m being charitable in the extreme by describing what Friedman does as ‘writing.’ The man’s prose style is beastly, consisting mainly of horribly mixed metaphors used to disguise the fact he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. You see, its like eating a yoghurt, but in 11 dimensions, travelling faster than the speed of light, in the glove box of a Prius…

More to the point, can Joke Line point to any valid studies (i.e., not from CAP and so on) that present a valid case for green jobs paying off? I’ll wait.
.
And, if Joke Line wanted to get Americans employed, he’d call for immigration enforcement. The immediately preceding text is a link with a question I wanted JNapolitano to be asked. If someone could ask her or another admin official about that it might encourage the White House to put Americans first.

Have you read his book? Any of them? I take it you don’t have respect for his argument, but I wouldn’t really know, because one: I’m sure you don’t know what they are and two: you haven’t actually critiqued his argument you just attacked him personally based on a minute piece of info that may or may not be true, but doesn’t amount to a hill of beans in any event because it doesn’t have anything to do with the point being made. So from your limited perspective who is it we should be listening to when it comes to figuring out the direction we should take as a nation? Should we critique and ponder the words of those in our society like Friedman who are educated, have a proven track record for intelligent analysis and can communicate their points of view cogently or should we reserve our attention for your heroes like Beck, Limbaugh, O’Reilly and oh yeah the great American fiction writer Sarah Palin? Please, give me a break — this country was created by men and a few women, who didn’t get much credit but contributed mightily anyway, who were the top intellectuals and political thinkers of their day. Our founding documents stand as proof of their superior analysis and their ability to communicate effectively. And try as I might to find one, not a Beck or Palin in the bunch.

like Friedman who are educated, have a proven track record for intelligent analysis and can communicate their points of view cogently
.
Dee, I like you but you have officially jumped off the rails. As has been pointed out elswhere in this thread Freidman holds several records for being consistently wrong about Iraq and his skills at cultural analysis are something only a Villager could love.

This is more of a response to Dee – While I agree its simple-minded to claim ‘it’s all about oil’ (In fact I don’t think even the Iraq War was really about oil, but rather was about raw power, both domestically and internationally. But that’s another story…) there is a petro-based argument for staying in Afghanistan. Basically if you can stabilise A-Stan, then you have a real country bordering places like Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. That then alllows you to build pipeline routes into Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, which have frankly awesome amounts of oil and gas. Currently the only pipes out of the ‘Stans lead through Russia which makes Moscow the monopsony purchaser i.e. the only foreign power making serious money out of this.

Readers familiar with pre Sept 11th Bush policy towards Afghanistan will remember their were some rumblings about going to war with the Taliban over this issue if they refused to play ball.

Or it could be that sometimes actually accomplishing something through compromise is superior to ideological purity or bleating endlessly about “centrists”.
.
You make no arguments about *how* to accomplish your goals, just cracks about “centrists” that stand in the way. As if being pragmatic and willing to consider viewpoints other than your own is inherently evil, or that compromises to get some but not all of what you believe in show lack of character or backbone.
.
Childish, simpleminded, zero sum political thinking.

Actually, the Stalin = centrism bit just made me laugh… yes, let’s invoke the guy that sent the commissars after anyone that didn’t hold to the ideological line to describe people that favor compromises and results over tea bagger style purity.

“Childish, simpleminded, zero sum political thinking.”
.
Insult is not normally considered an argument but maybe you centrists have learned to compromise on logic now, as well as compromising on moral principles, or maintaining consistency with previous positions.

“Actually, the Stalin = centrism bit just made me laugh… yes, let’s invoke the guy that sent the commissars after anyone that didn’t hold to the ideological line to describe people that favor compromises and results over tea bagger style purity.”
.
You just finished comparing American Liberals to Mao and Pinochet in a previous thread so I’m shocked at your shock for being compared to Stalin. He too believed action was more important than thought and he, just like Lieberman and Nelson, your heroes, refused to compromise. The only difference I guess is I’m not certain whether Stalin could be bought off by a single industry. It’s hilarious having a centrist lecture me on the need to compromise.

Just back from last minute Christmas rush and was flabbergasted by the number here who agree about Friedman Although the one non-surprise was Dee going on for paragraphs and being utterly wrong.

PS Yes, I have have read his books. The illogic in parts is endless. What I find more disturbing which I expressed in my intial post is the utter hypocrisy. He, like Algore blabber endlessly about the environment and are monuments to smoke belchers everywhere.

Lead follow or shut up.

Yes, but the question still remains why have we ascribed a motive, generally reserved for the neocons and perhaps even justified since they went into Iraq with a plan to secure the oil ministries and nothing else. Are we saying that since Obama isn’t a pacifist who immediately withdrew from Afghanistan that he is a neocon like Bush and friends?

Making a lot of assumptions there, but appreciate being told who my heroes are and so on. You’re quite the psychic.
.
I don’t recall making any statements about admiring conservatives because they, like the Left, believe in something and stick to it no matter how few other people do or the consequences. I also don’t recall anything about action without thought… actually, I like action after a lot of thought and debate, particularly from all sides.
.
I guess compromise is only valuable when it suits you, which is not really making any compromise at all. But that would actually be more consistent with your viewpoint, where anyone who doesn’t agree with you doesn’t “think.” You’re not arguing why centrism is bad, you’re just whining about how you never get your way because of that pesky majority of people you know you’re smarter than.

“I guess compromise is only valuable when it suits you, which is not really making any compromise at all.”
.
The public option was a compromise. There were several watered down versions of it. It is probably the only thing that will not be in the bill, even in it’s most watered down version and you accuse liberals of not being willing to compromise. The so-called liberals are still lined up to vote for this thing.
.
From now on the Democratic party should just go and ask Nelson or Lieberman what is acceptable to them and then forgo all else, especially the pretense that any other ideas count, or will be accommodated by the flexible “moderates.” They don’t even think the House should have any input on this. Let’s just save all the time thinking the view point of anyone else matters but theirs and let them write all the legislation.

Friedman was consistently wrong about Iraq, predicting every 6 months at the start of the war that events would improve (Friedman Units). Years of miscalculation while our men and women died.
He has promised Nirvana with his flat world. Out sourcing was to be a boon to everyone in the world.
Well let’s see: Their is still slave labor, millions of jobs lost in this country, China still not a democracy.
I am pleased he supports doing something about global warming. But, I am cautious about his solutions. So far he has a history of undeniable misjudgement.
He now opposes the Afghanistan war. Well, where has Mr. Friedman been the last 9 years?

Klein and Friedman, two penises in a pod.

Palin throws down the gauntlet:
.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/23/sarah-palin-responds-winning-lie-year

One of the prblems with “centrism” as currently practiced is that it ends up with either the worst of both worlds or absolutely unpricipled.

To take an obvious example. many liberals think that torturing prisonors is wrong and should be treated as war crimes pursuant to laws currently on the books in this country. Many conservatives think that torture is AOK because obviously anyone who ‘wants to kill us’ deserves every moment of agony that can be managed. Centrists on the other hand agree that torture is wrong and illegal but that nevertheless the people who actually did it should be rewarded for their service.

Not much in the way of moral clarity in THAT neighborhood….

Caught in a lie, she proceeds to tell yet another lie. How surprising.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/sarah-palin-tries-to-rewrite-history-of-her-death-panel-claim/

Revised spob:
.
Palin throws down the stupidity. Again.

I’m sorry Paul, but I don’t have any use at all for group think. My opinions are based primarily on the conclusions I draw from what I read. And I’m not about to dismiss someone in their entirety because I disagreed with them on something. Nobody is perfect and I won’t hold anyone to that kind of standard. Moreover, Have you read “Hot Flat & Crowded? Exactly what do you find flaws about the premise of this treatise? Or for that matter exactly what was so culturally wrong about the Lexus and the olive grove or tree what ever it is. I think Friedman is right that America is up against a global threat they’re ignoring, while busy living on a reputation they earned a generation ago. Billions of people who want more or getting to clean our clock if we don’t stop reminiscing about the days of John Wayne and create the next google. As countries educate their population and their middle-class grows, they are going to compete for our jobs and all Friedman is saying is that we had better be a player in the next new wave of economic development or be content to be little more that a rent a cop for the world.
.
Now did Friedman get anything right about Iraq? From your perspective, perhaps not. However, while I can disagree with some of his conclusions I can also respect his ability to make a cogent argument. He supported Bush’s premise that if the US could create a functional Democracy in the region it could stabilize the middle east. Now the premise is not entirely without merit. When you look at countries like India, that is diverse and has a sizeable muslim population you can see that democracy has flourished and so is their economy. Where GE goes wars do not follow. Odds are that creating a flourishing democracy in the region could have had a positive impact on the surrounding dictatorships immensely and put pressure on them to liberalize their politics and eventually give their people the hope that when denied fuels suicide bombers. However, where he and Bush went wrong was in not asking themselves first whether we had the capacity to create such a democracy in the region or whether that kind of movement had to be organic if it was to matter.
.
Nevertheless, I will continue to take every argument as it comes, no matter how wrong the author may have been on a previous argument, because odds are we learn from our past misjudgments and get better over time. Unless I know from the outset that an author is devoid of the basic tenets of integrity and fails to have a grasp of the concepts of truth, facts and logic. I don’t have to agree with everything they have ever said to feel listening to what they have to say has merit. Friedman definitely falls into this category with me. sorry that you chose to be more closed minded but that’s your perrogative. Hopefully you are not saying that I will n o longer be liked because I don’t have the same outlook on this as you.
.
Frankly, Friedman happens to be dead on in regards to this issue. And the right can hold on to their oil like its the last buggy whip if they want to , but if the rest of us want our children and our grandchildren to have jobs they had better heed the warnings and get with the program. Moreover, instead of taking an exclusionary policy that mirrors the folks on the right who are busy purging their ranks of anyone who does not tow the company line, perhaps we ought to embrace any and every argument that is credible and advances our political agenda on climate change. That was the goal right?

Dee, I‘m saying is that there is no measure of increased national security to be gained in Afghanistan. Gen. Jones says: “(the) al Qaeda presence (in Afghanistan) is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country. No bases. No ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.” Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi suggests that ”Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda has likely been reduced to a core group of eight to ten terrorists.” Even Gen. McChrystal says “I do not see indications of a large al-Qaida presence in Afghanistan now”. Whatever AQ may remain are there to fight US troops in country and, possibly, to disrupt the illegitimate Karzai regime.
.
The argument that we need to deny them sanctuary in Afg is illogical. AQ was in Afg because we set them up there to resist Russia. Bin Laden is a wealthy Saudi, Mohamed Atta was educated in Germany and lived and trained in the US. Why they would need that god-forsaken strip of rock is beyond me.
.
Pakistani nukes are a very legitimate concern. But the Taliban are not al Qaeda. Per Juan Cole: “(The Taliban) pledged that their organization has no international dimensions and they do not seek to commit terrorism in the West.” and concludes “The Taliban are pulling away from the wounded al-Qaeda.” We give billions to Pak to make sure the nukes are secure and have considerable intelligence assets watching over them. And understand that nuclear material does not equal a nuclear bomb. One needs the material, a trigger and a means of deployment- all very detectable. The unsophisticated Taliban are not going to simply walk out of Pakistani nuclear facilities with them. And it would take a radical turn of events to create a scenario where Pak military officers could do likewise. If such upheaval were to occur, you can be assured that the US would be watching. Our attacks make the improbable more likely.
.
Diplomats are best able to keep things quiet in Pakistan (and with rival India), our intel community will guard against smuggling nukes out of Pak, Homeland Security is tasked with preventing them from being imported to the US and local police protect our cities- all independent of the troops.
.
Lastly, you say Obama is not Bush. True, but the military is still run by all Bush holdovers. Why do you believe they’ve changed course now?
.
Don’t dismiss my argument as un-serious (very Joe-like). Convince me otherwise. Why, if not for oil, are we spending trillions in Af/Pak?

* “Gen Jones”, “Giraldi” and “Juan Cole” are all links- no red for some reason…

When Joe praises Friedman is that his way of telling us to suck… on… this?

I think the Ben Nelson well is pretty much dry for the next few congressional sessions. This won’t happen in 2010…

http://www.political-buzz.com/

It’s not irrational to both, judge issues on their individual merit and consider the merit of an individual’s opinion based on past performance on a different subject. For example, when certain Conservatives hold forth on global warming in this forum, it actually helps to discredit their other economic theories with which I might otherwise be tempted to agree. Their willingness to believe in implausable conspiracies over science leads me to believe that their theories concerning the relationship of government activity and productivity are on similarly sandy ground.

Where I might actually agree with Mr Friedman concerning energy policy, citing him as a source unfortunately weakens, rather than strengthens the argument. Other comments on this thread help make clear why……

Jesus, I agree with Joe Klein and Tom Friedman. Must be Christmas…or something worse.

Shorter response to Dee (yeah, I know, sorry).
.
If Bush were still President and he surged troops by 30K (and subsequent contractor surge), pledged almost $3B in Af infrastructure, and sought to build a $3/4 Billion embassy in Pakistan, you, Joe, and most Swamp-denizens, would rightly be crying: neocons, imperialists, war-for-oil, monger… and decrying the media for allowing them cover. Now, because you like Obama, we should unquestionably trust him? Don’t forget who runs the military and who is still providing smart mil analysis: the same guys as before. Obama, simply put, has not stood up to his Generals. And the media, of course, learns nothing from the past.

Must be one of those wise men searching for a star….

OT, Jokeline, the Chairperson of the House Rules Committee disagrees with you on the Senate HCR Bill. Are you going to call her DFH

Since so many of Joe’s posts stem from people saying things that he doesn’t like, and he equates “not having faith in the government” to “sedition”, I wonder if we can expect to see him report on this:
.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/_Shut-up_-is-a-favorite-Democrat-talking-point-8675353-79938422.html
.
“In related news, Rep. Alan Grayson, Lunatic-Fla., known mainly for saying the Republicans’ health plans called for asking the sick to “die quickly” and for telling former Vice President Cheney to “shut the f–k up,” sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking the Department of Justice to investigate, fine, and perhaps send to jail for five years a Florida activist who reacted to his behavior by setting up a fundraising Web site called “mycongressmanisnuts.com.”"

WAR IS PEACE
.
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
.
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

UP IS DOWN
.
LEFT IS RIGHT
.
MONA LISA WAS A MAN

Merry Christmas, all.

nflfoghorn – I thought everyone knew Mona Lisa was a man.

http://www.studiolo.org/Mona/MONA11.htm

Wow – never thought of her, er, him that way. Thanks for the good laugh!

“Palin throws down the gauntlet:”
.
Truth picks up gauntlet and slaps Pailn with it.

Noemie Emery? Really apollyon07?

nfl- I believe it should be written:
“Left is correct”
(with the corollary “Right is wrong”).

Paul, I know it’s not from a great source, but the excerpt I provided (I didn’t pay much attention to the rest of the story, I saw the excerpt somewhere else and clicked it).
.
What about the excerpt I did post though? Send someone to jail for protesting? Is that not alarming?

I thought everyone knew that Ann Coulter is a man.
.
Ooops, LB is going nuts…gotta go!

Send someone to jail for protesting? Is that not alarming?

Actually he’s apparently accusing her of filing false docs with the Federal Election Commission but he’s clearly over the top. It’s likely that Mr. Holder will NOT be responding favorably.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-grayson-seeks-charges-20091218,0,7319415.story

I’m glad I checked because I was already halfway through a post calling BS on the The Examiner. I would have been wrong.

For the record, I am now officially embarrassed on behalf of the Democratic party. To date, I’ve been entertained by Congressman Grayson’s outspokeness but he apparent is unable to take what he dishes out,

Shameful:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/GraysonComplaint.pdf

Thanks for the needed clarification!

haha wow that was funny seeing “MyCongressmanIsNuts.com” written in official print like that.

Friedman’s op-ed seems spot-on to me.

We’re facing a global crisis at a time when the United States suffers from political paralysis and an apparent unwillingness to invest in the future.

True, Friedman got everything wrong about Iraq, and he writes like a college freshman who just took a “history of ideas” course. Then again, Al Gore chose Joe Lieberman for his running mate.