Educating Thomas Friedman

Jonathan Schwarz:

As Glenn Greenwald points out, Thomas Friedman endorsed terrorism yesterday in his New York Times column:

Israel’s counterstrategy [in 2006] was to use its Air Force to pummel Hezbollah and, while not directly targeting the Lebanese civilians with whom Hezbollah was intertwined, to inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large. It was not pretty, but it was logical. Israel basically said that when dealing with a nonstate actor, Hezbollah, nested among civilians, the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians — the families and employers of the militants — to restrain Hezbollah in the future...

In Gaza, I still can’t tell if Israel is trying to eradicate Hamas or trying to educate Hamas, by inflicting a heavy death toll on Hamas militants and heavy pain on the Gaza population...If it is out to educate Hamas, Israel may have achieved its aims.

That's an interesting theory about using massive force to "educate" people. I wonder how well it worked on Thomas Friedman himself after the 9/11 attacks? His immediate reaction to the "heavy pain" inflicted on New York City's population was to try to restrain America's nationalistic right wing, right?

Tim Russert Show, CNBC
October 13, 2001

THOMAS FRIEDMAN: So it's time we got tough. It's time that we looked people in the eye. It's time that the terrorists were the ones who are always afraid, always looking over their shoulder, and to create that, you do have to fight a different kind of war. I was a critic of Rumsfeld before, but there's one thing...that I do like about Rumsfeld. He's just a little bit crazy, OK? He's just a little bit crazy, and in this kind of war, they always count on being able to out-crazy us.

Huh. Well, I'm sure it will work differently on the filthy wogs, given that they're subhuman.

—Jonathan Schwarz

Thomas Friedman's econimic thoughts may be evolving

Elaine Meinel Supkis:

Thomas Friedman’s World Is Flat Broke: Politics and Power: vanityfair.com

It would be easy to dismiss today’s rant (however spot-on it might be) by New YorkTimes columnist Thomas Friedman as yet another ideological tirade against the U.S. automobile industry. But based on the bad news coming out of shopping-mall owner General Growth Properties [GGP], it is no wonder Friedman is feeling crankier than usual. That’s because the author’s wife, Ann (née Bucksbaum), is an heir to the General Growth fortune. In the past year, the couple—who live in an 11,400-square-foot mansion in Bethesda, Maryland—have watched helplessly as General Growth stock has fallen 99 percent, from a high of $51 to a recent 35 cents a share. The assorted Bucksbaum family trusts, once worth a combined $3.6 billion, are now worth less than $25 million.

But don’t expect Friedman to go from Beirut to Jerusalem begging for money. The distinguished columnist (and former New Establishment member) is still said to get at least $50,000 per speaking engagement on top of the millions he makes writing best-sellers.

He lost 99% of his wealth? This is good news. I wonder if he will finally figure out that he was a fool, a knave and a bastard? He is totally at fault here. The mess that ate up his wealth is the same that is eating all wealth: too much debt. The organization that allowed this beastly man to live in a mansion and ride in a private jet and lecture us little people from his high perch was all based on debt.

[. . .]

When stocks were at $70, I bet old Friedman felt like a king. Well, I hope he enjoys his new pauper status. Maybe he can write a book about how great it is to be protected rather than ravaged by exterior forces. Maybe this fool will connect more than two dots and figure out how his wife’s stocks became a bubble. For what we are looking at is where just one part of the massive Japanese carry trade lending flowed: to any organization willing to sop it up. This flood of funny money is now vanishing and so all the stocks that fed off of it are falling off the exact same cliff.