dagblog - Comments for "Wise Men"

Tom Friedman?s War on

Donal — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:29:04 +0000

In reply to Wise Men

Tom Friedman’s War on Humanity

Thomas Friedman, three-time Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign affairs columnist for the New York Times, once offered the following insight into his modus operandi: “I often begin writing columns by interviewing myself.”

Some might see this as an unsurprising revelation in light of Edward Said’s appraisal: “It’s as if … what scholars, poets, historians, fighters, and statesmen have done is not as important or as central as what Friedman himself thinks.”

According to Friedman, the purpose of the auto-interviews is merely to analyze his feelings on certain issues. Given that his feelings tend to undergo drastic inter- and sometimes intra-columnar modifications, one potentially convenient byproduct of such an approach to journalism is the impression that Friedman interviews many more people than he actually does.

For example, while one of Friedman’s alter-egos considered blasphemous the “Saddamist” notion that the Iraq war had anything to do with oil, another was of the opinion that the war was “partly about oil,” and another appeared to be under the impression that it was entirely about oil, assigning the blame for U.S. troop deaths in Fallujah to Hummer proprietors. Despite Friedman’s identification as “a liberal on every issue other than this war,” competing layers of his persona defined said conflict as “the most radical-liberal revolutionary war the U.S. has ever launched” as well as part of a “neocon strategy.”

The irony of having Friedman

moat — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 23:04:28 +0000

In reply to Wise Men

The irony of having Friedman rail against "special interest" groups as the canker sore on the lips of our Republic is awesome when one remembers that his career has been nothing but a swinging motion from one special interest to another.

I am thankful for the "vetocracy" Fukuyama complains about.

It is stupid, caters to the lowest common denominator, and would throw you under the bus for a hamburger and a side of fries.

But it is also one of the few political instruments slowing down the people now wielding power.

The cost is that the

Michael Wolraich — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 19:28:38 +0000

In reply to Aren't most of the costs here

The cost is that the government is comatose. It no longer has the ability to respond to the country's needs--from economic crisis to infrastructure development to social welfare.

Cory rocks! I know that

Richard Day — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 19:26:12 +0000

In reply to Speaking of NJ, is it too

Cory rocks!

I know that heroes are not supposed to set up their version of own heroism on the set of public opinion. Of course if guys like Corsi look into it and provide some fraudulent narrative that makes heroes look bad.

But I like this guy for sure!

Speaking of NJ, is it too

Verified Atheist — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 19:20:08 +0000

In reply to Like some Platonic panel of

Speaking of NJ, is it too soon to suggest Cory Booker for President in 2016?

I agree that it's not just

Michael Wolraich — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 19:18:52 +0000

In reply to Agree in intent - While

I agree that it's not just the Internet but the diversification of news media in general. It started even before cable news with talk radio in the late 80s.

Aren't most of the costs here

Michael Maiello — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 18:18:56 +0000

In reply to Obviously, I'm not the

Aren't most of the costs here simply the implementation of law and regulations that people don't want? You can argue that maybe people don't know what's good for them, which I think is part of what Friedman is saying, but that does presume an awful lot.

Like some Platonic panel of

Richard Day — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 17:07:03 +0000

In reply to Wise Men

Like some Platonic panel of philosopher priests would get us out of our current miasma!

Whether it is good or bad we live in a Democratic Republic!

We tried a super committee and everyone turned their back on its findings.

There remains a large portion of the electorate who thinks that inane comments like:

I bought that microphone and

There ya go again

represent some divine rhetoric emanating from a great communicator.

Substantially, the repubs will do anything they can to hurt the American Worker, the minorities and the economy for spite and for political gain.

When employment figures look bad, they cheer; when a few hundred thousand more members of the old middle class lose their homes they claim an affirmation of their beliefs; when millions more find the need for food stamps they claim those millions are leeches on society.

Sometimes I think we would do better with regional governments.

Then the gov of NJ shitcans a gigantic public works project that destroys an opportunity of employment for tens of thousands of people and real economic opportunities for his region following completion of that project.

So what region should NJ be assigned?

The right has become so psychotic that Brewer has had to veto bill after bill emanating from the Arizona legislature.

As long as the Senate demands a 60 vote majority on every single issue facing this country I think that our Democratic Republic is screwed.

Friedman is just another flathead fathead who has no idea what in the hell he is talking about.

But he is paid well for his nonsense.

Agree in intent - While

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 07:28:45 +0000

In reply to Obviously, I'm not the

Agree in intent -

While democracy for Greece sounds nice, since the public voted by taking their money out of country and embracing tax evasion by over 50%, it's a bit ironic for them to be voting democractically for how to pay off creditors.

With our Super-PACs, key issues of the day can easily be persuaded for the majority issue-by-issue. Do we want elected representatives to "do the right thing" or simply follow instant public opinion?

Occupy Wall Street, while of excellent intent, seems to have failed from lack of authority, and lack of definition. I was skeptical at first that it was their job to come up with all answers for failed leadership, but without a Julian Assange/Blofeld figurehead, the inside-beltway media just couldn't be bothered to take the issues seriously (i.e. take the reporting to the next step, like real investigative journalism, rather than just taking pics of gatherings)

While backroom deals of old may have been cronyism and corruption, they still seemed to get some valuable compromises made. Now it's Beavis & Butthead seeing who can make the stupidest counter-productive policy decision possible.

I don't think the internet brought it on per se - I think it was the death of the pseudo-non-partisan media. Local newspapers could be counted on to have right or left spin, but the national networks always had a fairly even tilt. With the success of Fox and the acceptance that reality will have a partisan tilt on each story, the cut a swath through mainstream news. While mainstream has gone out of its way not to intimidate anyone - balancing left & right whether it needed balancing or not ("some say Hitler is an evil genius, while others say..."), Fox proved you don't need to sugar coat it - and which engages an audience better, luke-warm moderation or fanatic enthusiasm?

We've gone tribal, and we don't have a council of village elders, a Loya Jurga, to bring things in sync. Or when we do get them, they're filled with the in-bred idiot offspring of the previous decade. What to do? Aside from complain about cell-phone coverage.

Obviously, I'm not the

Michael Wolraich — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 05:38:00 +0000

In reply to Wise Men

Obviously, I'm not the biggest Friedman fan, but I think that you're selling him short.

His piece wasn't really about technocrats or backroom deals. It was about a crisis of authority. That crisis is real. The Internet, the blogosphere and C-Span are factors in that crisis. So is Fox News and talk radio and the Tea Party and OWS.

Friedman is focused on the downside of the crisis, so he talks up authoritative palliatives. You're focused on the upside of the crisis, so you talk up democratic expansion. But there are both downsides and upsides to the crisis. Believe it or not, even democracy has downsides.

The optimist in me feels that the crisis is a good thing in the long run, since it opens us up to new possibilities for a better society. But it comes at a cost that includes congressional paralysis, scientific skepticism, anti-intellectualism, and reactionary backsliding a la Wisconsin, to name a few.

Consider the printing press. By creating a platform for new ideas it broke the authority of the Catholic Church and provided a foundation for the Scientific Revolution, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment. But that same crisis also produced two centuries of horrific violence--massacres, religious persecution, civil war.

It was, in the end, a monumental step forward. I hope what is happening now--from the Arab Spring to OWS--will be take us another great step forward. Nonetheless, there are costs that unqualified hip-hip-hoorays for democracy obscure. Friedman is right to point them out, even if he misses the upside.