dagblog - Comments for "Tom Friedman Behind the Curve Again"

As a wrap, I refer to another

Oxy Mora — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:45:24 +0000

In reply to Tom Friedman Behind the Curve Again

As a wrap, I refer to another NYT article, Aug, 16, "Crashing the Tea Party", by Campbell and Putnam, conveniently referenced in the "IN THE NEWS section, upper Right hand corner.

The authors describe in detail the composition and beliefs of "tea party" supporters. Does Freidman do nothing but browse through his own book "The Flat Earth" hoping therein to find some insight about what's going on in the world? He should read his own newspaper, not his useless tome.

The authors Campbell and Putnam, who oddly enough base their conclusions on original research ,expose the "tea party" for what it is. They debunk the the myth that the "tea party" was then, or now, representative of the broad middle class and that it "sprung from nowhere".

In my opinion exposing the "tea party" for what it is and what it believes, and then tying those truths around the necks of Republican candidates is at the heart of the 2012 election. I recommend the article.

The Dagblog editorial attack

Oxy Mora — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 22:58:37 +0000

In reply to How'd I miss this? Kickbutt

The Dagblog editorial attack team is on the case.

Thanks. I actually proposed

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 22:15:49 +0000

In reply to Excellent point, Genghis.

Thanks. I actually proposed it to my agent for a book, but she preferred my other ideas. Not sure why.

How'd I miss this? Kickbutt

Michael Maiello — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 22:04:29 +0000

In reply to Tom Friedman Behind the Curve Again

How'd I miss this? Kickbutt takedown!

Excellent point, Genghis.

acanuck — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 18:39:22 +0000

In reply to I think that Friedman's

Excellent point, Genghis. Especially the printing press metaphor. Like today's social media, it expanded both access to information and freedom of expression. Luther used it to challenge the existing orthodoxy, but was horrified to realize it could be used to challenge all orthodoxy -- even the very idea of orthodoxy.

So he lent his voice to the bloody suppression of the revolting peasants. That's the stage the Republican establishment is reaching with its own Frankenstein monster. The Tea Party, which claims to represent basic Republican principles, actually threatens the party's hold on power. Unfortunately, there are no noble armies handy to crush the heretics.

The Bush backing TParty was

NCD — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:27:35 +0000

In reply to OK, to clarify, feeling "left

The Bush backing TParty was denied what Karl Rove and the GOP machine promised them. A permanent Republican majority!

A heaven sent 71% vertiginous gain (or more) in their portfolios, cheap gas for their SUV's, a booming economy and the end of the Democratic Party.

What they got was a stinkin' war that cost trillions, put Iranian Mullahs in charge of Iraq (which few of them can even find on a map), tens of thousands of troop casualties, a crashed economy and a black man as President.

Great comments. And

Oxy Mora — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 19:59:13 +0000

In reply to We viewed the introductory

Great comments. And exsanguination--I hope to never see one. But come to think about it, as metaphor I think Friedman's article bled out before hitting print.

The best education is

rmrd0000 — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 19:45:04 +0000

In reply to Friedman is still at the

The best education is realizing that if something sounds too simple, you're probably missing the big picture. This posture doesn't have to keep you from taking action in any given situation, but reminds you to keep your guard up.

Friedman is still at the

Elusive Trope — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 19:34:32 +0000

In reply to We viewed the introductory

Friedman is still at the basic arrow drawing stage of why events occur.

Not to sound too arrogant, but in this sense Friedman is man of the people.

In a perfect world kids would graduate with a thorough understanding of complex systems and complex adaptive systems. They would know what "sensitive dependence upon initial conditions" means, and how feedback loops impact things from the environment to poverty.

We viewed the introductory

rmrd0000 — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 18:48:45 +0000

In reply to Tom Friedman Behind the Curve Again

We viewed the introductory physiology course as learning the technique of drawing arrows between angonist, receptor and physiologic event. Arrows were drawn to connect intermediate steps as well. You continued to draw the arrows until you described a basic process like how to"thin" the blood to prevent blood clots from forming. The arrows were very calming in that they made things simple and easy to understand.

All the other physiology courses were about the myriad number of times the arrows did not fully explain why a given event occurred. The courses required actual thought and reminded you of the vast number of questions in physiology that remained unanswered. Blocking certain agonists and receptors did not produce the expected effect. You were also amazed that blocking some clotting processes did not result in exsanguination. Simplistic views rarely work in the real world.

Friedman is still at the basic arrow drawing stage of why events occur.