Why is Thomas Friedman so out-of-touch with reality ??

[kentuck]

It's like he's living in a dream world - a world as he would like it to be - rather than as it really is. This guy amazes me with his bullshit.
=======================================================================
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/opinion/13friedman.html

<snip>
From Baghdad to Beirut, the Middle East has seen a series of unprecedented popular demonstrations for democracy. There were, however, two street protests in December that got virtually no coverage, but were just as important, if not more. One took place in the Egyptian Nile Delta town of Mahalla and the other in the Suez Canal city of Ismailiya. Both of these raucous Egyptian demonstrations, which involved marches, strikes, denunciations of the government and appeals to Parliament, were triggered by President Hosni Mubarak's decision to sign the first substantial trade agreement with Israel since Camp David. That decision brought Egyptian workers from both areas into the streets. They were furious. They were enraged. Why?

They were not included in the new trade deal with Israel.

<snip>
There are a lot of messages in this bottle. One is that if you create a real opportunity for Israeli and Egyptian businesses to interact profitably, not only will Egyptians ignore the protests of the old Nasserites who want to boycott Israel, they will seize the opportunity and protest mightily if they are kept out.

Another message: This "Baghdad spring" will not blossom into sustainable democracy in any of these Arab states without a broader middle class and civil society institutions to support it. For too long, U.S. foreign policy was based on buying stability in the Arab world by supporting dictators, who destroyed all the independent press, political parties, unions, real private sector and civil society in their countries - everything except the mosque. Iraq is the starkest example of this, which is why democratization there will take time.

[Atman]

1. He's a republican. It's part of the job description. (nt)

,

[democrat in Tallahassee]

2. he can't admit he was wrong about the war in Iraq plus bush is

probably paying him

[Pithy Cherub]

13. It's "hard work" admitting you are wrong...

Just like his paeans to *, he must follow the egregious example and admit no errors. :crazy:

[whistle]

3. Perhaps like so many others in MSM, Friedman relies totally...

...on the propaganda news that comes from the White House and other government sources

<see today's story in the NYT>

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/politics/13covert.html?th

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

4. Kentuck, old bean, have you ever spent time in Manhattan?

I have. I even lived there for a time, but being a country boy to the marrow, I got the hell out. Just ain't me. Like living in a Human Habitrail, it is. I do applaud those who can do it. They are strong folks. Survivors made of the sternest stuff.

That said, Manhattan is something of an intellectual bell jar, sealed off from a lot of the realities of everything outside of it. It forms it's own memes, it's own realities and then assumes that said memes and realities apply to everywhere past either river that brackets the island. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I offer this because you can be sure that Goodfellow Friedman is a Manhattanite. At least for a significant portion of his life. He is only as good and knowledgeable as those he associates with. Perhaps he needs to get out more?

I can tell you that such a bell jar effect exists in any American seat of real power. Manhattan, Washington, LA...it all seems to apply.

I offer this only in some small explanation, not in criticism.

[MrModerate]

5. Here's what's scary -- Friedman is widely traveled and knows . . .

The Middle East as well or better than any pundit, having visited there A LOT.

He's no neocon, and while he may be Republican, he's never (AFAIK) been noticeably partisan.

But yes, he has drunk the koolaid, and has supported the war on the basis of "democracy at the point of a gun" being a wise choice.

Like I said, a qualified, not-stupid, non-partisan pundit who sides with Schimpanski 3 times out of 10. While I think it's realistic to continue regarding Bush as a bit of a dumbfuck, not everyone who agrees with him is too.

Just deluded, and profoundly wrong in this case.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

7. One of the interesting aspects about living on Manhattan...

Or in any seat of power, is the formation of intellectual cliques or "salons" that form accepted philosophies for the issues of the day. Now, rest assured that the greatest motivation in this is a social one, for we all like approbation for those things we believe and we find that approbation in like-minded folks. That said, this sort of thing becomes an intellectual "kipper on the plate", tainting everything around it.

I don't care where Friedman might have visited or spent some time. He has returned home, to the safe, the familiar and the approbating. He proves that every time he publishes something that ignores facts on the ground, in the service of some corrupt hopefulness.

Corrupt hopefulness helps no one.

[MrModerate]

12. I'm with you all the way except the kipper thingie . . .

I know what a "kipper" is, and "taint," and I'm pretty clear on "plate," but you lost me anyway.

And hey, I visit Salon every day and I don't feel a bit cliquish.

Seriously, I don't believe that Friedman is saying these things chiefly to garner the approbation of his clique. I think he's trying to maintain his notion of a "balanced" view of things, see all sides of an issue, and not succumb to the conventional wisdom (that is, Bush is a bloodthirsty fuckwit). Unfortunately that leads him down the garden path into unreality.

[gizmo1979]

6. Friedman has blasted the bushies at every turn

He's spent more time in the middle east then any other reporter,and he talks to all sides,so small feat for a jewish person.I don't always agree with his views,but I feel that he has done the work and has a right to report on it as he sees it.If bush had listened to him the fiasco in Iraq would be in it's final stage by now.

[kentuck]

9. And what is that "final stage"?

:shrug:

[gizmo1979]

11. Getting the fuck out!

[kodi]

8. he insists that democracy comes from capitalism, not the reverse.

Freidman is in essence, a Marxist.

Marx thought that society's economic structure determines the way people think, Weber believed just the opposite: Peoples beliefs influenced the way they set up their economy.

Marx called those aspects of society's economy (the relations of production, viz., the way in which people's lives are determined by the way they make distribute, and use material goods) the infrastructure, and beliefs, including religion and the arts, the superstructure.

Marx believed that the infrastructure determined the superstructure.

Just as Friedman has proposed.

But, from a Marxist perspective since we are now undergoing massive changes in the "modes of production," that is the foundation is spinning like a top, where is all the revolutionary ferment? We should be all commies by now according to Marxist theory.

Weber, believed that the superstructure determined the infrastructure. The rise of capitalism was buttressed by Calvinistic beliefs and view of saving money, investing it and the resultant economic prosperity reassured the people that they were favored by God.

Where Freidman shows that he is a confirmed idiot is that he preaches a Marxist cause, yet announces that the affect is Weberian.

[kentuck]

10. Interesting.....So is Bush turning the Middle East into Marxists ?

Because he believes, it seems to me, that money and jobs will determine the lives these people wish to live. He calls it capitalism, but is it really? The very air you breathe is determined by where you work and live...economic Marxism?

[kodi]

14. now you're getting it. and how strange it is for old anti-communists

In dealing with the Right, even the most articulate, and reading their most articulate essays I'm constantly impressed with their lack of substance. They seem to be without principles, and calling what guides them a philosophy seems to be giving them far more distinction than they deserve.

Rather their thought seems to be nothing more than crumbs and shards raked together from various sources-- Hobbes, Locke, Smith (invisible hand leading towards utopia), Marx (economic determinism),
Freud, where they get their constant urge to play on middle class fear, and numerous others and shaped together into a formless mass which they mold to the desired situation. There is no philosophical system on the right, rather only cynical opportunism mascarading as coherent thought, a fig leaf of virtue to hide their whoring ways.

I have no respect for them because they have no sense of shame. They are more akin to the Bolsheviks of Russia than to anything American (that is the reason that "Busheviks" appeals to me so much). For them everything comes down to attaining and retaining power and cashing in, nothing more.

It is not that the Right, or "conservative" is a dirty word, rather that it exemplifies a position of no coherent philosophy, except pure, unbridled greed.

Gee, just like Friedman's!

[hatrack]

15. His Golden Straitjacket is cutting off his oxygen

He's right about one time in ten, and occasionally amusing. Other than that, he's merely pathetic.

[leesa]

16. Because he makes money that way.