tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-50990385874176376352024-03-12T22:34:12.273-04:00Fire Tom FriedmanSure, he's low-hanging fruit and there's no shortage of excellent Friedman criticism already out there. But my friends and family have grown tired of my Friedman rants (and my wife forbade me from calling him at his home), so I need an outlet for my Friedman rage.Fire Tom Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12954125252756842447noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099038587417637635.post-54993787932989919502018-09-25T23:07:00.001-04:002018-09-25T23:07:21.547-04:00A very partial list of people and stuff that no longer takes up space in my brain since I quit Twitter<br />
<ul>
<li>Molly Crabapple</li>
<li>Chapo House </li>
<li>Umair H.</li>
<li>Sarah Kendzior</li>
<li>Hillary Clinton</li>
<li>Clara Jeffrey</li>
<li>Chris Hayes</li>
</ul>
<div>
I miss some of you though! (Not that you'll ever see this.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
FTF</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Fire Tom Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12954125252756842447noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099038587417637635.post-54130001942258409882017-09-24T00:13:00.001-04:002017-09-24T12:27:52.108-04:00Thursday, November 5, 2020As they've done for more than three years, the players kneel. Fists raised, heads bowed, they kneel.<br />
<br />
It's eerily silent as the anticipation builds. No insults raining down, nor yells of support for the kneeling players. No one in the crowd of 80,000 dares take a breath, let alone utter a word. All eyes are glued to the field, where the players kneel.<br />
<br />
And then she emerges through the tunnel and onto the field. The president-elect strides towards the kneeling players. She walks right up to a hulking lineman, and looks him in the eye. The crowd, which had erupted into a frenzy when she appeared, is silent once again.<br />
<br />
And then she kneels.<br />
<br />
There's not a dry-eye in the house or an unkneeled knee. Everyone - the fans, the coaches, the referees - #takestheknee.<br />
<br />
As the first familiar notes of the Star Spangled Banner start playing, she looks from kneeling man to kneeling man and fixes her strong, caring, dignified gaze on each one. And then she rises.<br />
<br />
And one by one, the players rise. Hands on hearts. Eyes proud. They rise.<br />
<br />
And the refs rise. And the coaches rise. And the crowd rises. And even Sam Grandy, the 88-year old peanut vendor who, if truth be told, had been ambivalent about kneeling in the first place because he feared this very moment, having to stand from a kneeling position, rises. Everyone rises.<br />
<br />
The darkness has lifted. We are with her. And she is with us.<br />
<br />
America rises.Fire Tom Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12954125252756842447noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099038587417637635.post-43841103584706316222017-01-19T17:16:00.000-05:002017-01-19T22:15:59.875-05:00The Resistance<b>Chapter 1</b><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
I don’t know what made me do it. Maybe I was feeling reckless. Maybe I picked
up a note of defiance in her voice as she ordered her latte. Or maybe it’s just
that as long as humans can remember Freedom, we’ll never lose our capacity to
Love. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I placed my order and as I followed her from the barista
towards the cashier, I saw my chance. Reaching for my wallet, I leaned in and
whispered, “#Drumpf.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
She didn’t acknowledge me or even flinch. Had I misjudged? I
started to panic, and my eyes instinctively glanced towards the door,
half-expecting to see the Trump Troopers. But all was quiet. She
Foursquared for her drink and headed for the door. By the time I had paid and generously tipped 12%,
she was gone. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I walked out into the bright sunlight and pulled out my phone.
A little crestfallen but also buoyed by the cherry notes of my espresso, I
pulled out my phone, and, after a quick check of my surroundings, opened Twitter.
I was just about to type in “#Drumpf” when a voice called out from the shadows,
“Do you whisper Keith Olbermann’s secret hashtag of the day in every stranger’s
ear or should I be flattered?”<br />
<br />
It was her. And she was vaping.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
Fire Tom Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12954125252756842447noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099038587417637635.post-32951796225894564332014-11-05T23:42:00.000-05:002014-11-06T08:00:18.753-05:00Dear President Obama<span style="font-size: small;"> <i>Note: Italicized portions of this letter were written by my good
friend</i></span><i><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><a href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/188153/democrats-lost-big-tonight-why-obama-should-double-down#">Katrina vanden Heuvel</a></i>. <br />
<br />
Dear President Obama,<br />
<br />
I am pretending to write to you because I am a fan of lazy
rhetorical devices.<br />
<br />
I know, in the wake of last night’s Democratic debacle,
there is no shortage of people offering you advice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Bomb Ebola. Make nice with the GOP. Stay the
fuck away from Hillary.
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;">My advice is a little different: ignore all the advice and
listen to your heart. Because in your heart-of-hearts, you’ve always
known the right thing to do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> And just in case you can't hear you heart right now, here's what it's telling you. <br /> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><i>Double down</i>. Go all-in. <i>Go big right now. </i> Put your cards
on the table. Pretend you’re going to fold, and then announce, “Fold? Me? Fuck
you. I’ve got 4 aces. I’m all in.” Look
at Ted Cruz’s face when you say it.<i> </i>Laugh manically. <i>Act big and act fast.</i> Triple down. Take a smoke
break. <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">And then</span> <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">go the fuck all-in again. </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;">For 6 years, maybe even for your entire life, you’ve
pretended to be someone you’re not. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
time for playing the long game is over. We’re in the home stretch. <i>Take advantage of the end of this year’s election cycle—the next fifty
or so days—to immediately try to change the subject, in a big way</i>. Do all the things
we know you want to do but haven’t done yet for reasons we don’t quite understand
even though we’re damn sure they are good reasons. <i>Dominate the news</i>. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><i>Cancel the Keystone XL</i>. Recognize Palestine.<i> Let the
right-wing come unglued</i>. Call off the drone strikes. <i>Host a national teach-in</i></span><i> with
real climate scientists, on C-Span, and use it to drive a nail in the coffin of
the fake, corporate-funded, “climate denial” science.</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Kick Dick Cheney in the balls. <i>Nominate a diverse set of progressives to fill
every judicial vacancy at every level.</i><b><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> </span></b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Free Chelsea Manning.
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Change the media
narrative</span></i>. Nominate Karl Marx to the Federal Reserve Board. <i>Pick a fight
with Rick Perry and/or Jan Brewer, if need be, and be glad that you’re in a
high-profile fight with them. </i>Fly down to Guantanamo, unlock the cages, put all
the detainees on Air Force One and drop them at Paul Ryan’s house. Force his
hand. Make Paul Ryan stand on his front porch and say, “I’m sorry those Guantanamo
detainees are not allowed in my house.” <i> Limit the pay of chief executives to some reasonable ratio to that of their average workers.</i></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><i><br /></i>Those are my suggestions.<i> </i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i>I’m sure people as smart as John Podesta and David Axelrod can think of a couple more. </i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><i>Be the change you want to see.</i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><i>Sí, se puede,</i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Fire Tom Friedman</span><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-style: normal; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> </span></i></span></div>
Fire Tom Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12954125252756842447noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099038587417637635.post-23472465400953295652014-05-23T17:28:00.000-04:002014-11-05T23:14:28.227-05:00Mother Jones' David Corn Likes to Screw Goats*<i>This post has been sitting in my draft folder for at least a year now. There was, prior to me typing these words, no content except that title with its tantalizing asterisk. I'm sure at one time I intended to make some insightful observation about David Corn or Mother Jones or something for which David Corn's affinity for goat-fucking was only a jumping-off point, but I've long-forgotten what it was. It's probably better this way. </i>Fire Tom Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12954125252756842447noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099038587417637635.post-35341400607103819052014-05-22T12:41:00.000-04:002014-05-22T13:43:31.983-04:00Does Prosecutor Who Investigated Todashev's Killing Know How To Use Google? On May 3, <a href="http://thebostonmarathonbombings.weebly.com/todashev-crime-scene-photos-revealed.html">a diligent blogger</a> was able to identify the mysterious FBI agent who shot and killed Ibragim Todashev as Aaron McFarlane, thanks to the fact that Florida's Ninth Circuit State Attorney Jeffrey L. Ashton doesn't properly black out names in his redacted report on the killing. As a result of that error, <a href="http://thebostonmarathonbombings.weebly.com/todashev-agent-involved-in-shooting-had-questionable-history.html">the same blog</a> and the <a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/05/13/fbi-shooter-had-stormy-record-officer/7zJ1ha78Z0SpfDey0PBuJJ/story.html">Boston Globe</a> were able to discover that prior to joining the FBI, Todashev's killer was a violent and dirty Oakland cop. Now <a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/05/21/city-oakland-look-into-fbi-agent-pension/WtfPYbKbPTa2YDboqZFGPJ/story.html?s_campaign=sm_tw">the Globe reports</a> that the prosecutor who found that Todashev's killing was justified was unaware of McFarlane's history. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A spokesman for Ashton said this week that the FBI did not tell Ashton or his investigator about McFarlane’s past in Oakland. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Mr. Ashton did not know any of the background of the officers,”
spokesman Richard I. Wallsh said. “What we presented in our report was a
full and exhaustive discussion of the information that we had in our
possession.”</blockquote>
Even before Aaron McFarlane became a household name (in my house, at least, I say his name a lot), a quick search revealed that McFarlane was a former Oakland cop who was involved in one of the most notorious police corruption scandals in recent memory, and was the subject of two police brutality lawsuits. If Ashton didn't know McFarlane's background, either the man who flunked Redaction 101 has also yet to master the simple Google search, or he's remarkably incurious.<br />
<br />
It would be nice if people would stop calling Ashton's regurgitation of FBI talking points an "independent" report. There's literally nothing in there that the FBI didn't want in there. The fact that Ashton -- who spent pages and pages detailing Todahsev's violent past including a rather bizarre obsession with his mixed martial art YouTube videos -- claims he didn't even know that the agent he was investigating was once accused of holding a man down while another cop stomped on him tells you all you need to know.<br />
<br />
Ashton's job was never to get to the bottom of what happened to Todashev, but to polish a giant FBI turd and make the questions go away. And they almost did -- mainstream media coverage about Todashev's death basically stopped after Ashton published his "findings." But now, thanks to Ashton's incompetent redactions, maybe even our timid journalist class will find the courage to starting asking questions again. They can start with this one:<br />
<br />
"Mr. Ashton, why didn't you Google Aaron McFarlane?"Fire Tom Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12954125252756842447noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099038587417637635.post-78978913479863585702014-03-28T17:18:00.002-04:002014-03-28T20:12:22.490-04:00The Todashev Files: The Questions Keep ComingConor Friedersdorf, who's done a decent job of covering the Todashev killing all along, <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/answers-in-the-fbi-killing-of-ibragim-todashev-and-more-questions/359601/">asks some good questions at the Atlantic</a>. I'd like to ask a few of my own, starting with one that Friedersdorf doesn't go far enough on: What's up with the text that Trooper One sent to Trooper Two and FBI Agent right before Todashev allegedly attacked?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Here's a text sent from inside the apartment. "Be on guard. He is in
vulnerable position to do something bad. Be on guard now. I see him
looking around at times ..." Isn't that a weird text? So needlessly long
and repetitive. Who texts like that? Especially when you're nervous
about the guy you're supposed to be paying attention to?</blockquote>
Who texts like that, indeed. Well, not the guy sending the text, for one. <a href="http://sao9documents.net/documents/Attachments%2050-71%20%28pgs.%20200-301%29%20%28OCR%29%20%28redacted%29.pdf" target="_blank">Check out the other texts sent by this same trooper</a> that same evening (pp. 2-3). "He signed his Miranda. About to tell his involvement." "He will be in custody after interviews." "whos your daddy." (Ewww.) Not one to mince words, this one. Why did he suddenly get so verbose at the very time he was extremely worried about Todashev doing "something bad"? And then there's the fact that the text had no effect on what happened next -- except that it took Trooper One's eyes of Todashev at an absolutely critical moment -- because no one read the text when it was sent. Trooper Two was on the phone and didn't see it until after Todashev was dead. FBI Agent never looked up from his questioning of Todashev to read it. In fact, Trooper One claims FBI Agent's phone never "dinged" to indicate he had a new text, which is why Trooper One looked down at his own phone to see if the text actually sent, which is why his eyes were off Todashev when he launched the coffee table.<br />
<br />
A uncharacteristically long, awkward text written at a moment when it was crucial to have eyes on Todashev Since I'm a troll and not a Serious Journalist, I'll ask instead of tiptoeing around.<br />
<br />
<b>1. Was the infamous "Be on guard" text sent after Todashev was dead?</b><br />
<br />
This question thing is fun. Here's some more:<br />
<br />
<b>2. Why did they interview Todashev in his home? </b><br />
<br />
According to the <a href="http://sao9documents.net/documents/Attachment%2093%20%28Transcripts%201-3%29%20%28OCR%29%20%28redacted%29.pdf" target="_blank">sworn statements of both Troopers and the FBI Agent</a>
(pages 26-48 and 55-57), they wanted to conduct the interview at the police
station and were very wary of questioning Todashev in his home. They
knew Todashev was prone to violence -- the FBI had watched him beat
a man up badly in a parking lot just a few weeks before. (And didn't
intervene - cool agency, that FBI.) They'd also spent a lot of time of
watching Todashev's MMA YouTube videos so they knew he was really strong
and tough.<br />
<br />
And yet, when Todashev refused to come to
the police station, they agreed to meet at this apartment. Why?
Because Todashev was scheduled to fly to Russia two days later and they
needed to talk to him before he left the country. So they decided the
risk of putting themselves in a dangerous situation was worth it. <br />
<br />
Did
they not have any way of preventing Todashev from leaving the country?
He was supposedly a suspect in a triple homicide. He had outstanding assault
charges. Could they not have held him on some pretext? And we haven't even gotten to the fact that Todashev was a Muslim and a friend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev -- at the time Scary Terrorist # 1. Do you really believe the FBI -- an agency that systemically surveills, harasses, and entraps Muslims -- was helpless to stop Todashev from flying out of the country?<br />
<br />
If you don't -- and you shouldn't -- then it's really worth asking the reason the interview didn't take place in a secure (for law enforcement, anyway) police station. <br />
<br />
<b>3. Why didn't the Troopers or FBI Agent mention their video and audio recordings of that night when they gave their sworn statements the next day?</b><br />
<br />
The day after Todashev was killed, both <a href="http://sao9documents.net/documents/Attachments%201-28%20%28pgs.%201-100%29%20%28OCR%29%20%28redacted%29.pdf" target="_blank">Troopers and FBI Agents gave sworn statements</a> (pages 29-48 and 55-57) about the events in Todashev's apartment. Their accounts are pretty detailed, with the FBI Agent devoting about a 1/2 page to describing Todashev's final piss (p.46). But one pretty major detail gets left out of all 3 accounts: the fact that they had made video and audio recordings of substantial parts of the evening. <br />
<br />
These omissions (or the attendant PR nightmare if discovered) were apparently very concerning to the FBI, which limited its <a href="http://sao9documents.net/documents/Attachments%2050-71%20%28pgs.%20200-301%29%20%28OCR%29%20%28redacted%29.pdf" target="_blank">only on-the-record followup interviews</a> (pages 78-94) with the Troopers and FBI Agent to the subject of the recordings. (Guess there wasn't anything else to ask about). Here's what each man said, with my annotations/questions interspersed.:<br />
<br />
Trooper One:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I did not mention the recordings in the initial interview because I was concentrating on the actual shooting incident itself. <i>[Not true. His account is of the entire evening, not just the shooting incident.]</i>Furthermore, I was never asked. The recordings were made known to other people involved in the handling of this case. <i>[Who? When? There is no evidence that anyone outside of FBI Agent and the two Troopers was told about the recordings for days.]. </i>Also, the recordings were provided to District Attorney’s Office the day after we arrived back in Massachusetts. [<i>When was this?</i>] Nothing was out of the ordinary, as MSP tends to record subject interviews. [<i>Ha! And more Ha! coming.] </i>Had I known the Shooting Incident Review Team was not aware of the recordings, I would have told them. <i>[The very non-threatening FBI's team responsible for investigating the incident -- <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/us/in-150-shootings-the-fbi-deemed-agents-faultless.html?_r=0" target="_blank">the one responsible for clearing agents in 150 consecutive shootings</a> -- didn't learn about the recordings for 2 weeks.]</i></blockquote>
<br />
Trooper Two's did not give a sworn statement, but his follow-up interviewe is summarized by FBI investigators: <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[Trooper Two] returned to his department in Boston he checked his audio recorder and found it had recorded a large portion of the interview with Todashev. [<i>Again, when was this? How long were recordings of that night only in the hands of those involved in the shooting? And really, Trooper Two? You weren't at all tempted to check what was on that recorder until you got back to Boston "and found it had recorded a large portion of the interview with Todashev.]</i> He submitted the recorder to his department for retrieval and dissemination to the FBI.”</blockquote>
And the shooter himself? He didn't even know that anything was being recorded! <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
During most of the interview of Todashev, I was sitting on the stairs and Trooper One was standing to my left and behind me. I did not see any recording devices or video cameras at the time we interviewed Todashev.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
… I first learned the interview was recorded on Friday, May 24, 2013 [<i>3 days after shooting!</i>], when I received a message from Trooper One who advised videos were uploaded to the Google cloud. <i>[FBI Agent's claim that he did not know the interview was recorded is contradicted by the fact that both <a href="http://sao9documents.net/documents/Attachments%2050-71%20%28pgs.%20200-301%29%20%28OCR%29%20%28redacted%29.pdf">FBI Agent admits -- and Troopers confirm</a> (</i><i>pages 78-94) -- that he was present for a conversation during the ride to Todashev's</i><i>
whether Florida was a one-party state (meaning they could record without
Todashev's consent). They called someone at the Orlando Police Department, who confirmed it was a
one-party state. So FBI was involved in a fairly detailed conversation about whether there would be a recording. He also knew that Trooper One had a video camera. And he also acknowledges that he heard Todashev say "Don't do that" to Trooper One when Todashev noticed Trooper One was recording, but FBI Agent claims he didn't know what Todashev was referring to.] </i> Once I located the recordings on the computer I found there were both audio and video recordings of the interview of Todashev. [<i>He "located" the recordings. He doesn't say if he looked at them. But he sure didn't tell anyone!]</i> I found out after the fact, Trooper One had used a high definition recorder which he had placed on the kitchen counter which eventually ran out of battery life, at which point Trooper One switched to his telephone to continue recording. I also found out after returning to Boston that Trooper Two had a recorder in his pocket during the interview. At the time of the interview, I did not know the interview was being recorded by anyone.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Trooper One advised he had passed the videos to other individuals who had a need to know in his department. After this had happened, I did not think about the recording. When I returned to work after being off for the injury I received as a result of the assault on my person by Todashev, I was contacted by REDACTED with some additional questions regarding my initial signed sworn statement. I mentioned to REDACTED something to the effect of, it would be nice if we released the video because it would refute many of the press’ allegations. [<i>What a great idea. I wonder why the FBI didn't do this!</i>] REDACTED was very surprised by this because he did not know about the video’s existence. [I<i>t's a couple of weeks into the FBI's most important internal investigation and the internal investigator at the agency doesn't know about the videos.</i>] He advised he would need a copy. I mentioned to REDACTED that I had only learned of the videos after the incident. …” </blockquote>
These accounts seem very implausible and lead to more questions:<br />
<br />
<b>3a) How long were the three law enforcement involved in questioning the only people in the world that knew of the existence of these recordings. Did Trooper One or Two watch/listen to the recordings after the shooting before they turned the recordings over?</b><br />
<br />
<b>3b) Did the FBI or any law enforcement agency examine the camcorder or phones that were used to record for signs that any video or audio recordings had been deleted? </b>There's no evidence that they did. <br />
<br />
<b>3c) Why were only portions of the evening recorded?</b><br />
<br />
Here's a summary of what <a href="http://sao9documents.net/documents/Attachments%2050-71%20%28pgs.%20200-301%29%20%28OCR%29%20%28redacted%29.pdf">Trooper One told the FBI</a> (pages 84-87):<br />
<br />
He retrieved his video camera and began recording about 20 minutes in. A while later he noticed the camera had stopped because the video card was full. He deleted some family videos stored on the camera and began recording again. Again the recorder stop because of lack of space. He deleted some more family videos, along with the first part of the Todashev meeting which he deemed unimportant. A while later he noticed his camera battery died, so he began recording on his phone. He recorded on his phone until he needed to use it to text. Drat! He missed Todashev's attack and the shooting.<br />
<br />
Here's what Trooper Two told the Florida Investigator about his partial recording:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
When asked why an audio recording was not collected for the entire length of the interview Trooper Two informed, “The um, my recorder died. It ah, shut off and I, I think there was another part, I may have went to pause it, inside my pocket and then restart it when he came down from the bathroom, I think is maybe when I paused it. Ah, I don’t recall, but ah, I tried to turn it back on and it died again. I didn’t realize it was not working, until after everything was said and done and realized it had…”</blockquote>
Double drat! He missed the attack and shooting too.<br />
<br />
A few things stand out. One, even if you accept the Troopers' explanation, the bumbling and fumbling and casualness with which the evening was recorded certainly doesn't read like a critical interrogation of someone who is suspected of committing three murders with the Boston Bomber. Two, the starting and stopping of the video camera would make it easier to delete selected files/moments, were one inclined to so. And, of course, all that on and off action begs the question:<br />
<br />
<b>3d) Were the recording devices delibrately shut off at various times because the law enforcement present did not want those moments recorded?</b><br />
<br />
In addition to the questions raised in this post, there's also <a href="http://firetomfriedman.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-todashev-files-mystery-of-flying.html">The Mystery of the Flying Coffee Table</a>.<br />
<br />
I'm not claiming that every single one of these questions has a nefarious answer, but I think they are all reasonable questions to ask and ask aggressively. And one gets the impression that the investigator for the Florida AG's office didn't ask any of these questions. Which, of course, isn't surprising because investigations of killer cops and FBI agents are almost always just for show.<br />
<br />
Which is all the more reason we shouldn't accept their answers. Fire Tom Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12954125252756842447noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099038587417637635.post-76588719996748531342014-03-25T16:45:00.000-04:002014-03-25T21:58:35.471-04:00The Todashev Files: The Mystery of the Flying Coffee TableGiven my propensity to write <a href="http://firetomfriedman.blogspot.com/2014/03/praise-jesus-exclusive-look-at-fbis.html" target="_blank">fake reports</a>, I'm probably not the best one to break down the <a href="http://Florida AG's report on Todashev's killing" target="_blank">Florida AG's report on Todashev's killing</a>. But I've spent a couple of hours with it, and there's a lot that doesn't come close to making sense. Let's start with the coffee table.<br />
<br />
According to the official version of events, Massachusetts State Trooper Number Two is outside the apartment, while Trooper One and FBI Agent are inside with Todashev. Trooper One is sitting on the stairs to the apartment's second floor. FBI Agent is sitting in a folding chair across from Todashev, who is sitting on a mattress. In between the FBI Agent and Todashev is a large white coffee table. Todashev is writing his confession on the table. Here's a picture of Todashev sitting in front of the table without the FBI agent.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3wrTo5ChCtBR2bri06HJ2lbr8KDauKz8M3-lGwTacDLcd3hApbsPfenUBofKFlb_5tbqCeg_yrLMzGQ8SekknJNUCLDnSHQeUgJFRaD6Ubt50ore7fS5W4fhP7LJdsoSNRo51oroFkXo/s1600/coffee+table.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3wrTo5ChCtBR2bri06HJ2lbr8KDauKz8M3-lGwTacDLcd3hApbsPfenUBofKFlb_5tbqCeg_yrLMzGQ8SekknJNUCLDnSHQeUgJFRaD6Ubt50ore7fS5W4fhP7LJdsoSNRo51oroFkXo/s1600/coffee+table.JPG" height="312" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Trooper One is getting concerned that Todashev is getting more and more agitated after confessing to Waltham murders. So he texts Trooper Two and FBI Agent, “Be on guard. He is in vulnerable position to do something bad. Be on guard now. I see him looking around at times.” But Trooper Two is on the phone so he doesn't see the text and stays outside the apartment. Meanwhile, Trooper One does not hear a "ding" indicating that FBI Agent received his text so he looks down at his phone to make sure his message went through. At that moment, FBI Agent looks down at his notepad.<br />
<br />
With no eyes on him, Todashev leaps into action. He flips the coffee table into the air, striking FBI Agent. He then runs into the kitchen and starts rummaging around. Todashev then picks up a red broom stick and charges Trooper One. FBI Agent, thinking both his own and Trooper One's lives are in danger, shoots Todashev 3 times. When that doesn't stop Todashev, he fire four more bullets and kills him. <br />
<br />
OK. Back to the table. According to the official version: 1) Both Troopers and FBI Agent were very concerned about interviewing Todashev in his home because they knew he was violent; after all the FBI had witnessed Todashev beat up a man badly in a parking lot (without intervening) and also watched Todashev's MMA videos on YouTube. 2) Both Trooper One and FBI Agent were very concerned Todashev becoming increasingly agitated and going to try something. 3)Despite these concerns, one Trooper left the room while both FBI Agent and Trooper One took their eyes off Todashev. 4) Todashev attacked at the very instant he was unwatched. (This version of events is found in both the State AG's report and <a href="http://sao9documents.net/documents/Letter%20to%20Director%20Comey%20%2803-25-14%29.pdf" target="_blank">his letter summarizing his findings</a>. <br />
<br />
But it gets much weirder. Here's a picture of FBI agent's head where he was supposedly hit by flying table. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtaawi7efh3cq7Ay_LNmI6T2XbGzBNBB_vx2vv44G6payNTGMYolsiNBR3kPfluUlUJXElSFnEJ8JfucKH3kr24Bm5zWDrNpSXBG2IE2tn6DaJx7FHI59jr0Y08MinbAHvMyIIV4WbEdc/s1600/coffee+table.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtaawi7efh3cq7Ay_LNmI6T2XbGzBNBB_vx2vv44G6payNTGMYolsiNBR3kPfluUlUJXElSFnEJ8JfucKH3kr24Bm5zWDrNpSXBG2IE2tn6DaJx7FHI59jr0Y08MinbAHvMyIIV4WbEdc/s1600/coffee+table.png" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
Notice the gash is on on the back on his head. Now remember, he's sitting facing Todashev looking down at his note pad. How did the coffee table cause this wound? Go back and look at the coffee table. It's big. Granted, Todashev is one strong dude. But he threw the coffee high enough in the air to come down and land on FBI Agent's head from above?<br />
<br />
And then there's this: When Trooper One submitted <a href="http://sao9documents.net/documents/Attachments%201-28%20%28pgs.%201-100%29%20%28OCR%29%20%28redacted%29.pdf" target="_blank">written testimony</a> (p.34) the day after the incident, he wrote "I was sitting on the stairs across from SA (FBI Agent) , who was sitting in a chair directly across from Todaschev, who was sitting on the bed. A <b>small table</b> (emphasis added) separated SA and Todaschev." <br />
<br />
But the real kicker is this: <a href="http://sao9documents.net/documents/Attachments%201-28%20%28pgs.%201-100%29%20%28OCR%29%20%28redacted%29.pdf" target="_blank">The FBI Agent's description of what happened to his head</a> (p. 46), also taken from written testimony the next day.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I was reading my notepad when I heard a loud noise <b>and suddenly felt a blow to the back of my head</b>. I was knocked partially off my chair, but caught myself. I saw Todashev running past me and I tried to grab him. I removed my weapon from the holster and aimed the gun at Todashev who had run towards the kitchen.</blockquote>
To recap: <b>In testimony the next day, FBI Agent doesn't even mention being hit with a flying table, just that he "felt a blow to the back of my head." </b>Now I understand that he was looking down at his notepad, but he didn't happen to notice that the blow to his head was caused by that big (small?) coffee table flying through the air?<br />
<br />
The official FBI and Massachusetts State Police version of the coffee table -- faithfully regurgitated by Florida DA -- is crap. And that's just the coffee table. There's so much more blatant and obvious bullshit in these here <a href="http://sao9documents.net/" target="_blank">500 pages</a>.Fire Tom Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12954125252756842447noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099038587417637635.post-5680177718539683662014-03-24T11:41:00.000-04:002014-05-20T12:30:32.847-04:00Praise Jesus: An Exclusive Look at the FBI's Todashev Investigation<i>It’s been ten months since Ibragim Todashev was killed in his apartment while being
interrogated by an FBI agent and two Massachusetts State Police officers.
During that time, wild-eyed conspiracy theorists have engaged in irresponsible
speculation based on the most minor of details. Some tinfoil hats have even
gone so far as to suggest that the FBI agent who killed Todashev might have
wanted him dead, simply because: 1) Todashev was interrogated in his own home and
shot seven times, including once in the top of the head; 2) the <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-changes-story-again-ibragim-todashev-shooting-114132404.html" target="_blank">FBI keeps changing its story</a> and has claimed at different times that Todashev charged the
agent with a knife, a pole, a pipe, a broom and a ceremonial sword; and 3) since his
death, Todashev’s friends have been <a href="http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2014/02/25/waltham-murders-boston-marathon/" target="_blank">systematically harassed, arrested, and deported</a>. </i><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<i>Fortunately,
the FBI has conducted its own internal investigation of the shooting with the
thoroughness we’ve come to expect from the agency that has left no stone
unturned in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/us/in-150-shootings-the-fbi-deemed-agents-faultless.html?_r=0" title="blocked::http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/us/in-150-shootings-the-fbi-deemed-agents-faultless.html?_r=0">clearing
its agents of 150 consecutive shootings.</a> And while the FBI has not yet
announced its findings with regards to Todashev’s unfortunate death, Fire Tom
Friedman was able to obtain a copy of the still-classified report, a portion of
which is produced below. At the FBI’s request, FTF has changed the names of the
law enforcement personnel involved to appropriate pseudonyms.</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<br />
On
May 21, 2013, Special Agent Jesus of the Boston FBI Office and Officers Stellar
and Awesome of the Massachusetts State Police traveled to Orlando for their annual trip escorting blind
kids to Disney World. The following day, after tucking in the exhausted,
smiling children, the three men decided to hit a local animal
shelter to see if they could score some puppies for the kids. On the way there,
their vehicle was cut off by a weaving Ibragim Todashev, who taunted them before speeding off. Concerned, they decided to forgo the animal
shelter and began following Mr. Todashev’s vehicle. When Mr. Todashev pulled
into an apartment complex and got out of his car, Special Agent Jesus approached him.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<br />
Todashev began cursing and gesticulating wildly but his
demeanor changed as soon as Special Agent Jesus identified himself. “FBI?
Oh man. Do I have some shit to tell you,” remarked Mr. Todashev. Special
Agent Jesus urged him not to speak to law enforcement without a lawyer
present but Mr Todashev insisted that the men come into his apartment. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<br />
As soon
as they were inside, Mr. Todashev broke down crying and said, “I miss my best
friend Tamarlan Tsarnaev so much. You know the guy I mean? He bombed the Boston
Marathon. We were very close – we did everything together.”<br />
<br />
Special
Agent Jesus consoled Mr. Todashev and gave him a big hug. While Mr. Todashev
cried on Jesus’ shoulder, he sobbed, “When I say we did everything together, I
really mean it. One time we killed 3 pot dealers in Waltham, Massachusetts.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
“Whoa,
slow down,” said Special Agent Jesus. “You really need to stop right now and
call a lawyer. Anything you tell me can be used against you in a court of law!”
But Mr. Todashev insisted on describing in great detail how he and Mr. Tsarnaev
committed the Waltham
murders. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<br />
<i>Editors
note: At the FBI’s request, we are not publishing Todashev’s description of the
Waltham murders
because doing so would undermine an ongoing investigation and also probably
help terrorists kill some people. All you need to know is that Todashev and
Tamarlan </i><i>Tsarnaev are guilty of triple homicide</i>.<br />
<br />
Special
Agent Jesus noticed that Mr. Todashev was looking dehydrated after his
confession so he asked Officer Awesome to go the store and buy some PowerAde. A
short time later, Special Agent Jesus noticed Mr. Todashev looked hungry so he
sent Officer Stellar out for sandwiches. When Mr. Todashev was alone with
Special Agent Jesus, he said, “I feel a special bond with you. I want
to show you my most prized possession.<br />
<br />
Mr.
Todashev walked to a closet and pulled out a long metal pole. Attached to one
end was a sharp blade. “This is a ceremonial Chechen weapon. We call it a
knife-pipe. My grandmother made it for me. Isn’t it beautiful? It also comes with
a broom attachment.”<br />
<br />
After
the men admired the knife-pipe’s craftsmanship, they resumed their
conversation. Mr. Todashev continued to hold the knife-pipe.<br />
<br />
Mr.
Todashev said he wanted to sign a confession. Special Agent Jesus said he
wouldn’t allow Mr. Todashev to do that without talking to a lawyer first. Mr.
Todashev was furious. “I don’t deserve a lawyer. I’m a triple murderer,” he
screamed as he charged Special Agent Jesus with the knife-pipe.<br />
<br />
“Every
American has a right to an attorney,” said Special Agent Jesus. “Please stop
hitting me with the knife-pipe or I’ll have to shoot you, Ibby.<br />
<br />
When Mr. Todashev
didn’t stop, Special Agent Jesus reluctantly pulled his gun and shot him 6
times. Each bullet was expertly placed so as to slow Mr. Todashev without
delivering a fatal blow. Mr. Todashev fell to the floor.<br />
<br />
But
as Special Agent Jesus called for medical assistance, Mr. Todashev rose to his
feet. “I don’t want to live with what I’ve done. That’s why I’m committing
suicide-by-FBI agent,” he screamed as he lowered his head and charged Special
Agent Jesus once again. Mr. Todashev head-butted Special Agent Jesus’ gun, causing it to
discharge in the top of his head. Special Agent Jesus burst into tears as he realized the man he’d
come to regard as his flawed-brother was now dead.<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br /><br />Editor’s note. Hopefully this obviously true
account will put all the conspiracy theories to rest. Tune in next week for
another Fire Tom Friedman exclusive, when Special Agent Jesus travels to
Chechnya to return the knife-pipe to Todashev’s grandmother and ask her
forgiveness even though he did nothing wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> (</span>If you’re wondering why the FBI hasn’t been able to produce the
knife-pipe, this is the story for you!) </i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<br clear="all" style="mso-special-character: line-break;" /></div>
Fire Tom Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12954125252756842447noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099038587417637635.post-83484149735465192542014-03-16T00:00:00.001-04:002014-03-22T20:17:49.587-04:00The Mismatch of the Century: Barrett Brown vs. Tom Friedman<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Confession: I’m burnt out on Tom Friedman. I hardly ever
read him any more, having digested the five columns he lazily recycles over and
over far more times than is necessary to get the point or mock. I’m also tired
of Friedman jokes, which also suffer from the same problem of being really
repetitive -- cabdriver! Even worse, by focusing on his mangled metaphors and stupidity, Friedman’s critics tend to reduce Tommy to a harmless, bumbling
caricature, which obscures the fact that, while he is most certainly a bumbler
and a caricature, he’s actually been a very effective evangelist for
imperialism. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Nevertheless! When I was asked to review Barrett Brown’s
chapter on Friedman from his new book <a href="http://freebarrettbrown.org/keep-rootin-putin/" target="_blank">Keep Rootin' for Putin: EstablishmentPundits and the Twilight of American Competence</a>, I leapt at the chance. For
one, I’m a huge admirer of <a href="http://freebarrettbrown.org/" target="_blank">Brown</a>, the investigative journalist and founder of
Project PM, who has been imprisoned for 18 months and faces up to 70 years for
the most ludicrous charges. If this review makes my 4 readers more aware of
Brown’s plight or gets them to buy a book, the proceeds of which go to his
defense fund, great! But the main reason I was so excited was that I would
literally read Brown on anything, even boring old Tom Friedman. (If you haven’t
been reading the series “<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2014/01/14/the-barrett-brown-review-of-arts-and-letters-and-jail-the-poetry-of-william-blake/">The
Barrett Brown Review of Arts and Letters and Jail</a>,” put this “review” on
hold and go do so<b>.)</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Brown doesn’t disappoint. His chapter belongs in the
pantheon of great Friedman takedowns, alongside <a href="http://nypress.com/flathead/" target="_blank">Matt Tiabbi</a>, <a href="http://www.versobooks.com/books/1024-the-imperial-messenger" target="_blank">Belen Fernandez</a>,
and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv6nvMUq10U" target="_blank">the Greenwash Guerrillas who pied The Stache</a>. As always, Brown is a pleasure
to read – his unique voice, comic detours, and impeccable timing had me laughing
throughout the chapter. It also helps that many of the columns Brown skewers are not the usual ones we’ve come to associate with Friedman’s
horribleness. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Take the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/23/opinion/russia-s-last-line.html" target="_blank">2001 column</a> from which Brown gets the book’s title,
a cringe-inducing paean to Vladimir Putin written after Friedman flies to
Moscow and is blown away by the fact that one can get sushi there (“yes, from
borscht to Big Macs to California-Kremlin rolls in one decade!”) He concludes
-- based on this observation, another meal at “a combination art
gallery-restaurant” and a conversation with his “Russian friend Viktor” -- that
Putinism is a good thing. The column ends – seriously – with an exhortation to “keep
rootin’ for Putin.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Putin, Brown points out, was the former head of the FSB when agents were caught red-handed planting explosives in Moscow which they planned to blame on Chechen
terrorists. Brown details how questionable attribution of other attacks in Russia was used as the pretext to invade Chechnya and
how those who questioned whether the FSB might actually be the terrorists were
strong-armed and undermined with dirty tricks. The war on Chechnya proved
so popular with Russians that Putin, its champion and architect, easily won the
presidency. All of this might have been cause for alarm for Friedman in 2001,
but what’s war and manufactured terror attacks compared to the novelty of a “California-Kremlin
roll.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In Friedman’s defense, it’s possible his praise for Putin wasn’t
genuine and the entire column was just filler because he thought “rootin’ for
Putin” was really clever. One of my favorite passages in Brown’s chapter is
when he destroys a column that’s constructed entirely around the fact
that Friedman decides to call Colin Powell's military service America OnDuty just so he can
contrast it with America Online. This allows Friedman to muse: </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal">
He spent thirty-five years of his life with America Onduty,
as a military officer. But for the past two years he’s been associated with America
Online, as a member of the AOL corporate board. So which perspective will Mr.
Powell bring to his job as Secretary of State—the perspective he gleaned with
America Onduty during the cold war or the perspective he gleaned with America
Online in the post-Cold War?</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Suffice to say, Brown has fun with this idiocy.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But back to Russia.
It’s now 2008, Russia has invaded Georgia, and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/opinion/20friedman.html?pagewanted=print&_r=1&" target="_blank">Friedman is no longer a Putin man</a>. In fact, he’s so disgusted
by Vladimir
that he calls out those – like the Bush and Clinton administrations – who
were guilty of “short-sightedness” with regards to Putin. Of course, there’s no
mention of Friedman’s own Putin vision problem. Being a pundit means never
having to say your sorry, or even being aware or honest about what you once
said. (One of <a href="http://firetomfriedman.blogspot.com/2011/09/do-you-remember-september-12-2012-we.html" target="_blank">Friedman’s most frequent lies about himself</a> is that he called for
$1/gallon gas tax on September 12, 2011. In fact, he called for Muslim heads. He
didn’t float his gas tax idea until October 5, 2003 – when the two wars he
cheerled were well under way.)<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Brown is a joy to read as a media critic and he expertly
fillets a number of other Friedman columns. But its not just talent that sets Brown apart from the other
4,303,301,087 people doing media criticism on the Internet and Twitter. Brown wants to level our pundits not because he wants to replace them with
better pundits (there’s no throat-clearing and pointing to himself here), but
because he wants to do away with pundits altogether. And pundits need to be slayed
not just because their stupid and wrong and always on the side of power, but because
the Internet, through things like access to direct material and crowd-sourcing,
offers a real and better alternative to our pathetic punditocracy. There’s poignancy
in reading Brown's book knowing that he faces life in prison for acting on these
ideals.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And then, of course, there’s the fact that while Barrett
Brown faces life in a cage, the man he utterly obliterates in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Rootin' for Putin </i>lives here:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJAagEQosU0ai1Du33ax_9NE9dNKRbygmwthJhdOIGNCZy7n0uzWAbgO5AwggHBLFXj-VYXgRdKPz8Q4RCkbqJGgTRTFg8o_CDfATLcS0cZtg2ZUXoRt4EocA2AjmIQ2qfcu2cufgAUkw/s1600/friedman+mansion.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJAagEQosU0ai1Du33ax_9NE9dNKRbygmwthJhdOIGNCZy7n0uzWAbgO5AwggHBLFXj-VYXgRdKPz8Q4RCkbqJGgTRTFg8o_CDfATLcS0cZtg2ZUXoRt4EocA2AjmIQ2qfcu2cufgAUkw/s1600/friedman+mansion.jpeg" height="207" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Free Barrett Brown.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And Fire Tom Friedman.</div>
Fire Tom Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12954125252756842447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099038587417637635.post-43345804191066409622013-11-08T17:40:00.001-05:002015-01-17T12:14:00.008-05:00Imagine<i>A few weeks ago,
protestors at Brown
University disrupted a
speech by NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly and forced him from the stage. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was a sad day for the great liberal values
that make America
and its elite universities great. It
didn’t have to be that way.</i><br />
<br />
As the protestors shout down Kelly, a lone pale figure dressed in
tweed stands quietly.He approaches the loudest, angriest protestor and says, “I, too, abhor, police tactics that disproportionately
target minorities. But you know what I abhor even more? Incivility! Have you
just tried talking to Ray Kelly?”<br />
<br />
The loud, angry protestor is taken aback. The man in tweed
has touched something deep inside him. He gives one last shout, but this time it’s
directed at his comrades, not the stage, “I think we should listen to what the
Commissioner has to say.”<br />
<br />
One by one, the protestors sit down. This time it’s Ray
Kelly’s turn to be stunned. “You’ve taught me quite a lesson here today,” he
says. “You had the power, but instead of using it to suppress me, you wielded
it wisely and fairly. I had a lecture
prepared but you know what, I’d rather listen to you!”<br />
<br />
Once again, the protestors rise to recite their grievances against
Kelly and the NYPD. But this time, they do in an orderly fashion. They wait in line for
the microphone. They address Kelly as “sir.” They hand him pamphlets with
beautiful fonts.<br />
<br />
As Kelly listens to people tell him calmly and so respectfully
how his police department has terrorized minority neighborhoods, tears stream
down his face. “I cannot believe how wrong I was,” he wails.<br />
<br />
“But we were wrong too,” say the former-protestors. “We
should have put our faith in rational discourse.”<br />
<br />
There is much weeping and hugging. Kelly announces, “I must call
Mayor Bloomberg and tell him the NYPD must change immediately.”<br />
<br />
Suddenly, Mayor Mike steps out from behind a tall plant. “You
don’t have to call me, Ray-Ray. I heard the whole thing. We only have a few months left in office, but
let’s reform the NYPD!”<br />
<br />
<i>Dedicated to <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/11/brown-universitys-anti-free-speech-faction-gets-put-in-its-place/281278/" target="_blank">Conor Friedersdorf</a>,
<a href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/177008/ray-kelly-shoutdown-free-speech-failure-or-democracy-action#" target="_blank">Katha "Weak Tea" Pollitt</a>, and <a href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/177008/ray-kelly-shoutdown-free-speech-failure-or-democracy-action#" target="_blank">that dude</a> who rightly reminded us that we're not Theodor Adorno.
</i><br />
<div id="divLookup" style="-moz-border-radius: 3px; background-color: #ffff77; color: black; left: 27px; padding: 3px; position: absolute; top: 387px; z-index: 10000;">
</div>
Fire Tom Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12954125252756842447noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099038587417637635.post-25534142627469546252013-07-31T14:59:00.001-04:002013-07-31T15:36:11.769-04:00Manning's "Struggles" There's a pretty repulsive profile of Bradley Manning on the front page of the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/us/loner-sought-a-refuge-and-chose-the-army.html?hp&_r=0" target="_blank"><i>New York Times</i> today</a>,
which declares, "the roots of Private Manning’s behavior may spring as
much from his troubled youth as from his political views." While it gives a nod to Manning's own statements that he was sickened by
viewing videos of war crimes, The <i>Times</i> story is basically the latest
attempt to assume that whistleblowing and dissent must be rooted in
pathology. So we hear yet again about Manning's conflicted sexuality,
his clashes with his father, and some new gems, such as "he spent much
of his childhood alone, playing video games or huddled in front of a
computer."<br />
<br />
I was fortunate to be in Fort Meade on June 3 when defense attorney David Coombs delivered his <a href="https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/sites/default/files/06-03-13%20AM%20session.pdf" target="_blank">opening statement</a>, and described the onset of Manning's struggles quite differently.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It was 24 December, 2009. He was 22 years young, in Iraq, his first deployment, his first unit. He was excited to be in Iraq, and he was excited to achieve his mission, and hopefully make Iraq a safer place.<br />
<br />
The EFP [Explosively Formed Projectile] alert that went out on that day broke the silence of an otherwise calm Christmas Eve. EFP had claimed the lives of too many soldiers. So when an alert went out, everybody in the TOC [Tactical Operation Center] and in the SCIF [Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility] went into an immediate frenzy to get information.<br />
<br />
PFC Manning was sent from the SCIF to the POC to find out what he could find out about the EFP. At that point all they really knew was that an element of the 210 was driving down a road that was rarely used and the lead element had been [inaudible to transcriber]<br />
<br />
PFC Manning went to get some additional information but none could be found. They didn't have any updates, so he went back to the SCIF empty-handed. A few tense moments later came the welcome news. Despite the lead element being hit, no soldiers were killed, no soldiers were injured. Everyone in the TOC started celebrating, everyone in the SCIF started celebrating. Good news was welcome on any day, but especially on Christmas Eve.<br />
<br />
A few minutes later came some additional news about that EFP, and the report indicated that as the lead element was driving down this road there was this civilian car in front of them, and that civilian car pulled over to the side, as was typical, to allow the convoy to go by, and they pulled over right in front of where that EFP was placed. The car had five occupants, two adults and three children. And that EFP went right through that car and hit that lead element. All five of the occupants were taken to the hospital, one died en route. Everyone in the TOC, in the SCIF was celebrating. Everyone was happy.<br />
<br />
Everyone but PFC Manning. He couldn't celebrate. He couldn't be happy. The reason why is he couldn't forget about the life that was lost on that day. He couldn't forget about the lives and the family that was impacted on that Christmas Eve.<br />
<br />
And from that moment forward PFC Manning started a struggle. </blockquote>
I may have missed it but I've never seen this story recounted in the mainstream media. It certainly wasn't in today's <i>Times</i>. But there's a strong case to made that if Manning felt isolated in Iraq, it had less to do with the childhood video games than with the fact he didn't feeling like partying after an Iraqi child was killed. <br />
<br />
It is amazing how little, more than 3 years after Manning's arrest, even well-meaning people know about the actual content that Manning leaked or his actual reasons for leaking. For example, even among many of his supporters there's a sense that Manning leaked for the sake of transparency. But Manning, as least as I read his own words, believed in transparency as a tactic, not the end goal. He wanted to stop the U.S. from committing atrocities -- both of war and "diplomacy" -- in other countries and he used the only weapon he had at his disposal -- information -- to try to do so.<br />
<br />
Michael Ratner has argued that one reason for the secret trial is that the government knows that Manning is such a sympathetic defendant. I agree. Which is why it's so infuriating -- and telling -- that the <i>Times</i> would rather send its armchair psychologists to root through Manning's childhood than let his actions and words speak for themselves. Fire Tom Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12954125252756842447noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099038587417637635.post-41197898652962283472012-12-27T16:07:00.000-05:002014-03-24T12:14:09.375-04:00My Sequel to Zero Dark ThirtyFrom Sunday's <a href="http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-73788436/" target="_blank">LA Times</a>: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man
who imagined and directed the 9/11 attacks, was captured by the CIA in
2003. For the next three years he was subjected to the harshest
treatment we could stomach. No other Al Qaeda operative in our custody
was subjected to so much.<br /></i><i>The result? KSM, as he is known within
the intelligence community, revealed nothing about the most valuable
thing he knew — Bin Laden's whereabouts. He did not, for example,
divulge the name of the Kuwaiti courier who served Bin Laden.</i><br />
<i> </i><i><br />This
is not coincidentally the piece of information that sets "Zero Dark
Thirty" in motion. Mohammed had trained the courier and knew of his
connection to Bin Laden. Instead, he sent agents on hundreds of futile
chases, hindering the hunt for Bin Laden rather than aiding it.</i><br />
<i> </i><i><br />The
simple fact is you can't reliably separate the gold from the dross that
torture yields. "He had us chasing the goddamn geese in Central Park
because he said some of them had explosives stuffed up their ass," one
FBI counter-terrorism agent said in frustration." </i></blockquote>
We begin with the torture. A brutalized KSM resists and curses his torturers, but finally shouts out the goose plot. The camera pulls back and we're in a room full of FBI agents who, we now realize, were watching the KSM interrogation on film. A stern-faced senior FBI agent addresses the room. "Gentleman," he intones, "We're going to need someone to look up inside a whole lot of geese's asses."<br />
<br />
Boss FBI man scans the room, as the camera pauses over each young agent silently praying he won't be chosen for this distasteful task. Until at last, we come to Adam Sandler, <i>man-child,</i> reading an <i>Archie </i>comic and blissfully unaware of all that's just transpired.<br />
<br />
I"m still filling in some of the pieces, but here's what will definitely be in <i>ZD 30-II: Wild Goose Chase</i>:<br />
<ol>
<li>A montage of Sandler chasing geese around Central Park. He's inept. At one point, he trips and loses his watch, which was given to him by his father, an FBI legend whose dying wish was for his own boy to join the Bureau. (Hint: The watch will play an important role later). </li>
<li>Lots of hilarious goose poop jokes.</li>
<li>Sandler befriends a goose, who he names Archie.</li>
<li>A shy, lonely office worker, played by Zooey Deschanel, spends her lunch hours in the park feeding geese. Zooey and Adam begin to notice each other.</li>
<li>Adam and Zooey talk. She's not at all put off by his whole <i>man-child</i> schtick. After all, she's a little quirky herself. And they both love geese.</li>
<li>Zooey and Adam fall in love. (Note: In a earlier version of this screenplay, Sandler falls in love with a goose, not a human. Still wondering if this might be better.) </li>
<li>A head-over-heels Zooey comes early to the park to surprise Sandler. She observes from afar as Sandler holds down a goose and looks up its asshole. He looks up and sees Zooey looking aghast. Heartbroken, she runs off. He yells, "It's not what you think," and starts to run after her, but, just then, Archie crosses his path. The goose has a mysterious metal object protruding out of its ass.</li>
<li>As Adam weighs chasing girl or goose, a sweet-looking boy approaches Archie with a piece of bread. It's time for the <i>man-child</i> to grow up. He picks up the boy and squires him to safety. Then he sprints and tackles the goose, and reaches up its ass and pulls out . . . his dad's watch. With tears streaming down his face, he puts the watch on. The camera pulls back to reveal a whole bunch of funny park-goers -- a tourist! someone on roller skates! a man with an afro! a drug addict! -- looking on in disbelief.</li>
<li>Zooey refuses to see or talk to the man she believes is a goose-fucker. Adam is sad.</li>
<li>Adam sees Zooey in the park. Archie is with him. She turns and it looks like she might give him a second chance when, out-of-nowhere, The Evil Muslim Terrorists grab Zooey. </li>
<li>Adam and Archie pursue The Evil Muslim Terrorists. Holy plot twist! The Evil Muslim Terrorists are not Muslim or Terrorists. But boy are they evil. It's one of KSM's torturers and the senior FBI agent who assigned Sandler to goose duty in the first place. Turns out they always had a grudge against Sandler's old man when he was at the bureau because he hated torture! Plus, maybe some outlandish plot involving goose smuggling.</li>
<li>Adam saves Zooey. Now she understands. </li>
<li>Adam and Zooey get married. Archie is the best man. KSM (Aziz Ansari, who else?) is at the wedding too, wearing his infamous white t-shirt.</li>
<li>As the credits roll, we see lots of hilarious takes of KSM being brutally tortured and making up other outlandish plots interspersed with scenes of Archie at the wedding getting really drunk and dancing with hot babes! The closing joke: A hungover Lindsay Lohan wakes up, her bridesmaid dress crumpled on the floor of her trashed hotel room. She coughs . . . and goose feathers come flying out her mouth!</li>
</ol>
I'm convinced my sequel will be much better than the original. Feel free to help me suss out the plot a little more in the comments.Fire Tom Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12954125252756842447noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099038587417637635.post-1920732023354245072012-12-18T15:01:00.001-05:002012-12-18T17:11:10.560-05:00Six Rules for Criticizing Obama Over Social Security CutsThese are confusing times for liberals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They’ve just awoken from a seven-week bender
to discover that their number one sacred cow – President Obama – wants to take
a butcher’s knife to sacred cow # 2, Social Security.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Libs are feeling angry, betrayed, and sputtery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They
want to hold Obama’s feet to the fire but aren’t sure how to do so in a way
that reassures Obama that they will always have his back.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Thankfully, liberals themselves have developed – and
relentlessly enforced – a number of rules about whether, when, and how it’s
acceptable to criticize Obama.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Libs love
rules almost as much as they love their rulers so hopefully this will help them
get through these troubling times.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
1. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">It is not OK to
criticize Obama for something he said he would do before the election.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This rule was best articulated by uber-lib David Atkins, who
took to the Daily Kos in 2009 to excoriate the timing of those who dare
criticized Obama’s plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan in a piece titled, “<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/02/17/698695/-Where-Were-All-You-People-During-the-Campaign">Where
Were All You People During the Campaign?</a>” </div>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal">
I have watched with no small shortage of puzzlement as much
of the progressive blogosphere has taken the Obama Administration to task for
its plans to send additional troops to secure Afghanistan from the threat posed
by the resurgence of the Taliban.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>. . .
(W)here was all this sturm und drang from the progressive blogosphere over the
need to leave Afghanistan
<i>during the primary process</i>, when all the major candidates had made
their positions perfectly clear? Where were the screaming cries of agony
during the campaign?</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
You get that? As liberals will always tell you, the time to
for frank criticism of their guy is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">during
</i>the campaign. And what was Obama saying about Social Security then? Well, in the first debate with Romney, <a href="https://twitter.com/peterfhart/status/280867164070760448">he said</a>, “I
suspect that on Social Security, we've got a somewhat similar position.” And as
Matt Stoller <a href="http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/07/obamas-second-term-agenda-cutting-social-security-medicare-andor-medicaid.html">documented
back in July</a>, cutting entitlements was always a major part of Obama’s
agenda for his second term.<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Bottom line: Obama told you he was going to cut Social
Security – it’s not his fault if you were too busy monitoring GOP Twitter
accounts to notice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You missed your
window for sturming and dranging, so STFU.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
2. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Obama is smarter
and knows more than you do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
"I'd literally trust his judgment over my own. I think he's
smarter than me, better informed, better able to understand the consequences of
his actions, and more farsighted. I voted for him because I trust his judgment,
and I still do." – Kevin Drum, Mother Jones</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Why does Obama want to want to cut Social Security? We don’t
know but the fact remains that we are not privy to everything that Obama knows
– and we probably couldn’t understand it if we were.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Maybe Obama is banking on the fact by the
Post Office will be closed by the time the cuts take effect so there won’t be
anyone to deliver benefit checks. Maybe he realizes that shit will
be so fucked up from climate collapse that no will live to see sixty-five in
the coming years.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Bottom line:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Obama
knows what he’s doing so STFU.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">3. Always consider
the alternatives.</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For those complaining about Obama, ask yourself this:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is there another politician you’d prefer to
cut Social Security?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because we don’t
love in some utopia where grandma gets to pay for food <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">and </i>heating oil.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Your
choices were Obama cutting Social Security or Romney <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>cutting Social Security. And personally, I’ll
take Obama every time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At least Obama
will act humble and pained about fucking over seniors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Are you honestly telling me you’d prefer Romney’s
smirk?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Bottom line: Grow up and STFU.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
4. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Pause to smell
Obama’s greatness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And take gratuitous
shots at Ralph Nader.</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Last night, Chris Hayes took to Twitter to <a href="https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/280861485322862593">express his
dismay</a> that Obama was considering cuts. When friendly Tweeters
responded that they were surprised that Hayes was surprised since Obama has
clearly been gunning for entitlements for some time, Hayes quickly dropped his Social
Security complaints and <a href="https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/280868314799022080">moved on to
weightier matters</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal">
Honest question for lefties who think Obama is horrible. Who
do you see as better, more progressive American presidents?</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To which Dan Savage <a href="https://twitter.com/fakedansavage/status/280868746392907776">replied</a>,
“Remember President Nader? He was so awesome.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(For readers unfamiliar with American history, there was no
President Nader! Savage is making a brilliant, biting joke designed to belittle
anyone unhappy with President Obama.)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Bottom line: Grow up and STFU. And Fuck Ralph Nader. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
5. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Remember Obama’s
heart is always in the right place.</b> <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">If
you must criticize him, do so only on tactics.</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As liberals will endlessly tell you, if Obama has one flaw, it’s
that he sometimes thinks too much of people. He has, for instance, failed to
recognize that the Republicans are the party of Satan.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He consistently tries to bargain with the GOP
and sometimes, because of his desire to promote bipartisanship, Obama will sound
and act exactly like the enemy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
combination of GOP evil and Obama magnanimity occasionally leads to
people getting screwed. Badly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But we
can all agree that that’s not what Obama really wants.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So while it would probably be best if you just STFU about Social
Security, please remember the following if you feel, out of some nagging sense of principle or concern for
humanity, that you must say something:</div>
<ol></ol>
A. Anything bad Obama does is primarily the GOP’s fault.<br />
B. You can criticize Obama for “caving.” You cannot criticize Obama for <i>wanting</i> to cut Social Security. (You might want to forget everything you read in rule # 1.)<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Bottom Line: Fuckin’ Republicans.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
6. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Keep your eye on
the big picture.</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is tempting to lash out at Obama and the Democrats for <s>slashing</s>
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>caving on Social Security. But remember,
Social Security is an incredibly popular program and if voters start
associating Democrats with benefit cuts, that’s not going to help come
November, 2014.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Imagine Obama’s last two
years in office if we win back the House and hold onto the Senate in the
midterms. We could restore the Social Security cuts, ban guns, reverse climate change, and maybe even
bring those Pakistani kids back to life.<br /><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But that’s not going to happen if you keep whining about
grandma, is it?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Bottom line: We love you Obama.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And if we ever doubted you, that’s our
failing, not yours. </div>
Fire Tom Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12954125252756842447noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099038587417637635.post-81315129833089312892012-11-20T14:57:00.001-05:002012-11-20T15:16:37.557-05:00The Courage of the ProgsWith all the horrific images and stories coming out of Gaza, it’s easy to overlook the true victims in this tragic story: progressive bloggers. Thankfully, Digby’s right-hand man, the courageous David Atkins, <a href="http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/gaza-by-davidoatkins.html">is here</a> to shed some much needed light on the bombs of hateful comments being tossed their way.<br />
<br />
Atkins’ piece is a response to criticisms that progressive bloggers have largely ignored the assault on Gaza. (While the assault was escalating this weekend, Atrios took to his blog to announce, “<a href="http://www.eschatonblog.com/2012/11/i-got-nothing-to-say.html">I Got Nothing To Say.</a>") For Atkins, there are three reasons why progressive bloggers don’t want to get their hands dirty on this one. These reasons are neither accurate or legitimate, but they are unintentionally illuminating enough to rouse Fire Tom Friedman out of a pathetically long hibernation. So without further ado, here’s Atkin on why the progs are right to keep quiet:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
1. <b>Incoherent, hateful backlash</b>. The fact is that it's impossible to say anything substantive about the Israel-Palestine conflict without being called a hateful anti-Semite, or a hateful bloodthirsty imperialist. Most hilarious is the notion that silence on the issue is caused by defense of the Administration, as if most of the progressive blogosphere had been somehow aggressive against the Bush Administration for failure to be concerned about the Palestinian people. If one examines the archives, one will see that most of the big sites from Atrios to DailyKos to TPM to Hullabaloo and the rest have largely refrained from commenting too much on the issue for years, long before Obama took office. That's in large part because nothing can be said about it without eliciting a horrifying deluge of asinine commentary that no other issue seems to generate. Especially for unpaid bloggers more concerned with climate change, the predations of the financial sector, the ongoing assault against the middle class and women's rights, etc., it's often not worth the headache of being called a vicious anti-semitic terrorist enabler and/or imperialist apartheid murderer--often for the exact same post. </blockquote>
<br />
Really, Palestine – shut up about your dead kids. As Atkins so forcefully reminds us, the brave men and women who take to the internet several times a day to generate page views for their personal blogs and those of their employers have feelings, too. Do the people of Gaza know what it’s like to endure a “horrifying deluge of asinine commentary?” Have they ever been called “a vicious anti-semitic terrorist enabler and/or imperialist apartheid murderer--often for the exact same post?”<br />
<br />
And as Atkins points out, it really is only “the Israel-Palestine conflict” that brings out this vulgarity on the internet. If only the commenters would be as restrained as they are when they discuss the recent election or immigration or marriage equality or anything having to do with non-Palestinian Muslims, I’m sure Atkins and co. would be happy to weigh in.<br />
<br />
Easy mockery aside, Atkins does have one point. The idea that the prog blogs are keeping quiet because of who is in the Oval Office is demonstrably false. Those who are cowards today when it comes to calling out Israel for war crimes, apartheid, and occupation were cowards during the Bush years as well. But that's because it's party orthodoxy, not the presidency, that matters. Progressive bloggers didn't oppose Bush’s Israel/Palestine policies because the Democrats didn't. <br />
<br />
Prog blogs have plenty to say on issues – and only on those issues -- where there are real (e.g. marriage equality) or perceived (e.g. climate change*) differences between the parties. But on Israel, the parties don’t even pretend to disagree (witness the Senate’s unanimous passage of a resolution written by AIPAC this morning) so there is simply no role for progressive bloggers to play. Maybe this is all just a long-winded way of saying progressive bloggers are Democratic mouthpieces. Not exactly news, I know. But it strikes me that by daring to talk about why progressive bloggers don’t dare to talk about Israel and Palestine, Atkins may have unintentionally exposed why the progressive blogosphere is so fucking harmful. <br />
<br />
Atkins being Atkins, he lists two more reasons the progs don’t do Israel that range from horribly offensive to asinine. His next reason, “2<b>) There are no good guys here</b>,” got my hopes up, but it turns out he’s talking about Israel and Palestine, not the progressive blogosphere. There’s enough nauseating equivalence between the occupiers and the occupied in this section to make you want to call Atkins “an imperialist apartheid murderer.” Do yourself a favor and skip it. <br />
<br />
Atkins may save the best for last, though, when he writes, “3) <b>There's nothing we can do about it</b>. It makes sense to blog about things that we can theoretically do something about.” It may be news to you and me that cutting off subsidies for Israel’s war machine is something the United States can’t even do in theory, but we don’t get invited to the same DNC cocktail parties as Atkins. So maybe he’s right and progressive bloggers should focus on manageable, easily solvable problems, like climate change. They should have that one solved by next spring – just in time to sit out Israel’s next assault on Gaza.<br />
<br />
<br />
*My favorite election season quote came from Matt Stoller, <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/11/03/why_is_the_left_defending_obama/" target="_blank">who wrote</a>, "Partisans may enjoy Mitt Romney’s corrupt denial of man-made global
warming, but nature doesn’t distinguish between Obama’s cynical lack of
action and Romney’s cynical denial of reality. We simply do not have
time for this nonsense anymore." Fire Tom Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12954125252756842447noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099038587417637635.post-38582414086255533832012-01-12T15:22:00.001-05:002012-01-12T15:32:10.063-05:00Meet Arthur S. Brisbane, Truth Vigilante!<p>Arthur S. Brisbane, the most timid in a long line of timid New York Times public editors, <a href="https://www.nytexaminer.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#" href="https://www.nytexaminer.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#">is having an existential crisis</a>. Brisbane is supposed to be The Times’ “readers' representative . . . who responds to complaints and comments from the public and monitors the paper's journalistic practices.” Brisbane has sailed through his first 18 months on the job, but now one of those pesky readers he’s supposed to be representing has asked him a real stumper.</p><p>Shouldn’t the Times, a reader emails, point out when the subject of a story is lying rather than just dutifully passing along those lies? The idea that a reporter should challenge the falsehoods of the powerful is so foreign and radical to Brisbane, whose been working in the newspaper business since 1976, that he doesn’t even have a word in his vocabulary (“fact-checking!” “reporting!” “journalism!”) to describe it. So he settles on the most straight-forward, rolling-off-the-tongue phrase he can think of: “truth vigilantism.”</p><p>In a provocative piece entitled, “Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?” Brisbane asks what reporters should do if, say, Mitt Romney excoriates President Obama for “apologizing for America” when, in fact, the President has done no such thing? (Turns out the Prez is just fine with America being the world’s most destructive force.) Should the Times point that Romney’s pants are on fire or just what Mitt said? There are, Brisbane notes, “some readers who, fed up with the distortions and evasions that are common in public life, look to The Times to set the record straight.” Of course, it’s not just the distortions and evasions in public life that readers are fed up with; it’s also the distortions and evasions in The Times. And framing it as a question of "setting the record straight" ignores the fact that The Times isn't just reporting what the liars say; it's amplifying those lies.</p><p>Regardless, it’s a <a href="https://www.nytexaminer.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#" href="https://www.nytexaminer.com/wp-admin/post-new.php#">pretty remarkable piece</a> that deserves to be read in its entirety, though preferably not while drinking a hot coffee or anything else that might damage your nasal passages. And Brisbane’s musings have already made quite a difference. For one, through sheer stupidity, Brisbane may have accidentally done more to draw attention to the fact that many of The Times “reporters” are mere stenographers than his three predecessors combined. And it’s propelled Brisbane from the guy no one knew existed to <a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/ggreenwald/statuses/157502127206445056" href="https://twitter.com/#!/ggreenwald/statuses/157502127206445056">an Internet joke</a> in just a few hours.</p><p>But alas, despite the fact that the 265 comments on Brisbane’s article all advocate for actual reporting, I predict that the only lasting result at The Times will be that Brisbane won’t be Public Editor much longer. Don’t cry for Arthur, though. I’m sure he’ll land a nice cushy job at teaching in the Truth Vigilante department at some prestigious university . . .</p>Fire Tom Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12954125252756842447noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099038587417637635.post-26118218561456108452011-11-16T15:00:00.006-05:002014-05-20T11:26:50.740-04:00Some of My Best Friends Are Deroy Murdock<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEht3blvjnlqVnzNABAeH-8un63GKScpADJyp7Q4ftqQQ9-IeSOJWHgpssLqJGpPUR0lY8Wklfc7uBlJZ_DysvTFcucR0SrjQcVNzVuXrsM782bRRNy2ZvMPWoOAAQtBZnk547AU3O4Jo2k/s1600/d-murdoch.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEht3blvjnlqVnzNABAeH-8un63GKScpADJyp7Q4ftqQQ9-IeSOJWHgpssLqJGpPUR0lY8Wklfc7uBlJZ_DysvTFcucR0SrjQcVNzVuXrsM782bRRNy2ZvMPWoOAAQtBZnk547AU3O4Jo2k/s200/d-murdoch.jpg" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5675698821141670850" style="float: left; height: 200px; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; width: 133px;" /></a> Move over Rosa Parks and James Meredith! There's a new civil rights trailblazer in town. Meet Deroy Murdock, the first black* speaker on the prestigious <a href="http://www.nrcruise.com/speakers.htm">National Review Cruise</a>! (OK, it's possible he's not the first, but there wasn't one last year which was the only other year I've tracked it.)<br />
<br />
And while all the credit in the world goes to Murdock and the Cruise organizers, I can't help but think that <a href="http://firetomfriedman.blogspot.com/2010/11/cruising-with-old-white-men-at-national.html">last year's Fire Tom Friedman </a><span class="hw"><a href="http://firetomfriedman.blogspot.com/2010/11/cruising-with-old-white-men-at-national.html">exposé</a> played a small part. In that post, I pointed out that the speakers were 91% male, 94% white and their average age was 58.</span><span class="hw"><br /><br />I'm happy to say that progress goes well beyond Deroy Murdock. This year, males only make up 85% of the speakers and whites only 90%. And Ramesh Ponnuru won't be so lonely when the Asian Caucus holds its meetings at this year's cruise, not with John Yoo on board!</span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiv6ila9hcGymJqm9G0fRw64kmWEPav6Fc0okL0A0glBUKp9O8pzQfTVDz-JpwWGn7V68IxWG6NP52bXV4PzOvGNZbsSee5v2JC2yne3orTfeEtavJSkDLarCF9ScRieH_3l7y1IYAdJAg/s1600/s-e-cupp.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiv6ila9hcGymJqm9G0fRw64kmWEPav6Fc0okL0A0glBUKp9O8pzQfTVDz-JpwWGn7V68IxWG6NP52bXV4PzOvGNZbsSee5v2JC2yne3orTfeEtavJSkDLarCF9ScRieH_3l7y1IYAdJAg/s200/s-e-cupp.jpg" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5675699140766650866" style="cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 173px; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; width: 133px;" /></a><br />
<span class="hw">And who says all the young kids are busy Occupying Wall Street? The </span><span class="hw"><br /></span><span class="hw">average age of a 2011 National Review speaker is a frisky 55 -- 3 years younger than last year! It's amazing what happens when you replace octogenarian Phyllis Schafley with America's Sassiest Randian, S.E. Cupp.<br /><br />Below is a complete speaker list so you can see what progress looks like.</span> <br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 387px;"><colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 6034; mso-width-source: userset; width: 124pt;" width="165"></col> <col style="mso-width-alt: 2706; mso-width-source: userset; width: 56pt;" width="74"></col> <col style="mso-width-alt: 3072; mso-width-source: userset; width: 63pt;" width="84"></col> <col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col> </colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td class="xl26" height="17" style="font-weight: bold; height: 12.75pt; width: 124pt;" width="165">Speaker</td> <td class="xl26" style="font-weight: bold; width: 56pt;" width="74">White?</td> <td class="xl26" style="font-weight: bold; width: 63pt;" width="84">Male?</td> <td class="xl27" style="font-weight: bold; width: 48pt;" width="64">Age</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5099038587417637635" name="RANGE!A2">Bernard Lewis</a></td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">95</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">James Q. Wilson</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">80</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Cal Thomas</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">79</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">John Sunununu</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">72</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Fred Thompson</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">69</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">John Derbyshire</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">66</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Tony Blankley</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">63</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Elliot Abrams</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">63</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">John Bolton</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">63</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Michael Walsh</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">62</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Victor Davis Hanson</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">58</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Andrew Klaven</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">57</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Mona Cheran</td> <td>White</td> <td>Female!!!</td> <td class="xl25">54</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Charles Kesler</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">54</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">John Fund</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">54</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 124pt;" width="165">James Lileks</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">53</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Mark Steyn</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">52</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Ralph Reed</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">50</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Tim Pawlenty</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">50</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Kevin Hassett</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">49</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Jay Nordlinger</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">48</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Charmaine Yoest</td> <td>White</td> <td>Female!!!</td> <td class="xl25">48</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Greg Gutfeld</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">47</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Deroy Murdock</td> <td>Black!!!!!!!!!!!!</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">47</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">John Yoo</td> <td>Asian!!!</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">44</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Rich Lowry</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">43</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Jonah Goldberg</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">42</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 124pt;" width="165">John J. Miller</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">41</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Roman Genn</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">39</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Ramesh Ponnuru</td> <td>Asian!!!</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">36</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Kathryn Lopez</td> <td>Hispanic!!!</td> <td>Female!!!</td> <td class="xl25">35</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">S.E. Cupp</td> <td>White</td> <td>Female!!!</td> <td class="xl25">32</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Tracie Sharp</td> <td>White</td> <td>Female!!!</td> <td class="xl25">????</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Sally Pipes</td> <td>White</td> <td>Female!!!</td> <td class="xl25">????</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 124pt;" width="165">Andrew McCarthy</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">???</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 124pt;" width="165">Jim Geraghty</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">???</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 124pt;" width="165">Rob Long</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">???</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Robert Costa</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">???</td> </tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Kevin Williamson</td> <td>White</td> <td>Male</td> <td class="xl25">??? </td> </tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
* The original post referred to Deroy Murdock as the "first African-American speaker." On October 5, 2012, Mr. Murdock emailed a correction request (a FTF first!), asking that "African-American" be changed to "black." The post has been updated to reflect Mr. Murdock's wishes.**<br />
<br />
** The original correction contained two embarrassing mistakes: Mr. Murdock's first name was wrongly listed as "Delroy" and the last sentence read, "The post has been <i>be</i> updated to reflect Mr. Murdock's wishes" (emphasis added). Those mistakes have now been corrected thanks, once again, to the diligence of Mr. Murdock. I apologize to Mr. Murdock, who has been nothing but delightfully gracious throughout this whole correction ordeal. So much so that I'm tempted to make another mistake in hopes of hearing from him again . . . Fire Tom Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12954125252756842447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099038587417637635.post-30737337570050217382011-11-08T13:23:00.000-05:002011-11-16T13:26:45.893-05:00The Imperial Messenger: Part 2 of FTF’s Interview with Belén Fernández<em>Belén Fernández is the author of the brand-new </em>The Imperial Messenger: Tom Friedman at Work.<em> Below is part 2 of my interview with her. If you missed part 1 (how dare you!), it’s <a href="http://firetomfriedman.blogspot.com/2011/11/imperial-messenger-tom-friedman-at-work.html">here</a>. To learn more about the book, please visit <a href="http://www.versobooks.com/books/1024-the-imperial-messenger" target="_blank"><em><em><em><em>http://www.versobooks.com/books/1024-the-imperial-messenger</em></em></em></em></a>. This <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/2011116114832660506.html" target="_blank">excerpt at Al Jazeera</a> is also highly recommended. ”</em> <p><strong><em>Did you come away with a lower opinion of Friedman or of the people and institutions that continually give him platforms to spew his idiotic, loathsome views? I find it so telling that, when Friedman did his “suck on this” performance on Charlie Rose, Rose just nods and leans in for the next question instead of calling Friedman out for saying one of the most offensive things ever said on television. Or to put it another way: Do you think the </em></strong><strong>New York Times<em> would allow one of their columnists to consistently dehumanize entire groups of people – to the point of openly calling for civilian deaths in Gaza, Afghanistan and Iraq – if those people weren’t Arab/Muslim?</em></strong></p> <p>Unfortunately, Orientalist dehumanization is institutionalized in US media discourse, the result being that there is no overwhelming public concern when over a million Iraq lives are lost thanks to America’s bellicose projects or when 1400 Palestinians perish in a matter of <a href="http://electronicintifada.net/content/lies-and-israels-war-crimes/8363#.TrQOMnPDJn8">22 days</a> at the hands of the Israel Defense Forces.</p> <p>It is utterly appalling that neither Charlie Rose nor anyone else in the US establishment media took issue with Friedman’s obscene proclamation, and that he was never required by his employer to apologize for it in the interest of maintaining a pretense of objectivity. One can imagine the uproar that would have ensued—and over which Friedman himself would have presided—had, for example, Yasser Arafat instructed Israelis to suck on things, or had Osama bin Laden justified 9/11 with similar terminology. Friedman, on the other hand, is permitted to continue blissfully peddling his contemptuous analyses of the Arab/Muslim world, such as his 2007 <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/opinion/05Friedman.html">assessment</a>—with regard to the US military—that Iraqis “don’t deserve such good people… if they continue to hate each other more than they love their own kids.”</p> <p>Of course, it is safe to assume that most Iraqis exhibit normal human affection for their offspring, including for those millions of offspring that have been killed, maimed, displaced or otherwise made to suffer as a result of a US military-inflicted sucking, and that the half a million Iraqi children previously killed by <a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084">US-championed sanctions</a> were probably also loved by their parents.</p> <p>Even if Charlie Rose et al. fail to comprehend that sucking orders do not qualify as proper journalistic etiquette, they should at least be able to comprehend that Friedman’s argument for <em>why</em> the sucking should occur is in complete defiance of logic. According to Friedman, Iraqis must be made to suck so that the US can effectively combat the “terrorism bubble” that has developed in “that part of the world” and that poses a “fundamental threat to our open society,” something Americans discovered on 9/11. However, this very same Friedman also <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/22/opinion/thinking-about-iraq-i.html">explains</a> that the real threat to “open, Western, liberal societies today” consists not of “the deterrables, like Saddam, but the undeterrables – the boys who did 9/11.” The resulting argument—made by someone who <em>himself</em> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/19/opinion/tell-the-truth.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm">criticizes</a> the Bush administration for implying a link between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein—is that war against deterrables whose weapons are not the problem will solve the problem of undeterrables who <em>are </em>the weapons and who by definition cannot be deterred anyway.</p> <p>Regarding your question of whether I have a lower opinion of Friedman or of those who encourage and promote him, they are all part of the same system that rewards the willful subversion of human empathy on behalf of empire and capital. The system would naturally exist without Friedman; he just does his part to sustain it.</p> <p>As for whether Friedman will ever be made to atone for his crimes, I’ve personally found that one effective means of stress relief is to ponder reincarnation options for him, an activity that he himself actually used to engage in on occasion in order to highlight what he deemed to be unethical behavior by certain sectors of the US citizenry. In a 2004 column entitled “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/25/opinion/25friedman.html">In My Next Life</a>,” for example, Friedman sarcastically described his desire for reincarnation as a college or professional athlete:</p> <blockquote><p>For a mere dunk of the basketball or first-down run, I want to be able to dance a jig, as if I’d just broken every record by Michael Jordan or Johnny Unitas. For the smallest, most routine bit of success in my sport, I want to be able to get in your face – I want to know who’s your daddy, I want to be able to high-five, low-five, thump my chest and dance on your grave. You talkin’ to me?</p></blockquote> <p>Why athletic grave-dancing is more offensive than telling entire populations to “suck. On. This” is unclear.</p> <p>I would meanwhile suggest Friedman contemplate reincarnation as an Afghan civilian, an aspiration that might merit the following description (as well as sudden re-reincarnation):</p> <blockquote><p>“Yes, in my next life I want to be an Afghan civilian. I want to meet my demise by American B-52, and, when I do, I want the foreign affairs columnist of the US newspaper of record to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/23/opinion/foreign-affairs-terrorist-software.html">place the ‘civilian’ portion of my identity inside quotation marks</a>. I want him to take time out of his busy schedule of complaining about his own horrific experiences and the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/10/opinion/foreign-affairs-the-y2k-social-disease.html">tendency of other diners to interrupt his restaurant meals with their cell phone conversations</a>, and I want him to debunk the blasphemous idea espoused by the European and Arab media, according to which I had <em>not</em> actually been ‘praying for another dose of B-52’s to liberate [me] from the Taliban.</p></blockquote> <p><strong><em>Did you find that Friedman tries to rewrite his own role in history, even though it’s quite easy to fact-check these days? For instance, I’ve noticed he often claims that he called for a $1/gallon “Patriot Tax” on gas on 9/12/01 when, in fact, he didn’t call for one until more than two years later – after both wars he had cheerled for were well under way.</em></strong></p> <p>Yeah, it’s not clear whether Friedman intentionally rewrites his own history or whether the rewriting is just a byproduct of the fact that he is employed in a position that does not require him to understand or keep track of what he himself thinks about things.</p> <p>To give a very simple example of self-contradiction, Friedman announces 200 pages into his book <em>The World Is Flat</em> that Globalization 1.0 was the era in which he was required to physically visit an airline ticket office in order to make his travel arrangements. According to the definition provided at the start of the book, however, Globalization 1.0 ended around the year 1800.</p> <p>On the subject of India, Friedman goes from arguing that “Indian democracy” and “economic liberalization” have enabled the high-tech industry in Bangalore to flourish, to arguing two years later that Bangalore high-tech firms “thrive by defying their political-economic environment, not by emerging from it.” Indian “democracy” is meanwhile additionally credited with the fact that “rioting didn’t spread anywhere” after the 2002 pogrom incited by the Hindu nationalist government of the state of Gujarat, in which several thousand Muslims were massacred. The article is perplexingly titled “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/14/opinion/where-freedom-reigns.html">Where Freedom Reigns</a>,” in spite of the massacre of Muslims.</p> <p>A month after <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/18/opinion/iraq-upside-down.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm">declaring</a> the war-based democracy experiment in Iraq “the most important task worth doing,” Friedman <a href="http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2002-10-15/news/0210150107_1_shooter-pizza-bin-laden">announces</a> that he doesn’t “want to hear another word about Iraq” given that there is a sniper on the loose in Montgomery County, Maryland, who is forcing him to become well-acquainted with the delivery man from California Pizza Kitchen and to “duck… behind a pillar” while filling up his car with gas. He fails to add this to the list of reasons America must cease its dependence on oil, though he does subsequently go from <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/opinion/27friedman.html">insisting</a> that George W. Bush renounce his limousine and set a “geo-green” example to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/19/opinion/19friedman.html">exulting</a> the following year over the fact that he himself is being chauffeured around Budapest in one. (Friedman goes as far as to provide his driver’s website—www.fclimo.hu—so that everyone can witness the capitalist evolution and integration into the global economy of a “Communist-era-engineer-turned-limo-proprietor,” but refrains from mentioning that none other than Bush is listed as a reference on the company’s website.)</p> <p>A few more quick examples of Friedman’s historical revisions:</p> <p>In 2005 Friedman <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/opinion/06friedman.html">declares</a> the need for “a proper civil war” in Iraq. In 2011 he miraculously <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/opinion/27friedman.html">displaces</a> the blame for civil war-mongering: “For all of the murderous efforts by Al Qaeda to trigger a full-scale civil war in Iraq, it never happened.”</p> <p>In 2002 Friedman informs Saudi crown prince Abdullah that “the Jews of the Clinton administration are gone” and that their replacement “WASPs” of the Bush administration “couldn’t care less about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It is not an issue that resonates with them at all.” In 2003 Friedman announces that the Bush team “has fallen so deep into the pocket of Ariel Sharon you can’t even find it any more” and that Bush may “be remembered as the president who got so wrapped around the finger of Ariel Sharon that he indulged Israel into thinking it really could have it all—settlements, prosperity, peace and democracy.”</p> <p>And so on.</p> <p>One of the more intriguing things about Friedman’s rewriting of history is that he relentlessly plugs his friend Dov Seidman’s book <em>How</em>: <em>Why How We Do Anything Means Everything … in Business (and in Life)</em>, according to which the centrality of blogs, Facebook, and YouTube to modern life ensures that “more and more of what you say or do or write will end up as a digital fingerprint that never gets erased.” Friedman <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/opinion/27friedman.html">provides the following illustrative anecdote</a> in 2007:</p> <blockquote><p>Three years ago, I was catching a plane at Boston’s Logan airport and went to buy some magazines for the flight. As I approached the cash register, a woman coming from another direction got there just behind me — I thought. But when I put my money down to pay, the woman said in a very loud voice: ‘Excuse me! I was here first!’ And then she fixed me with a piercing stare that said: ‘I know who you are.’ I said I was very sorry, but I was clearly there first.</p> <p>If that happened today, I would have had a very different reaction. I would have said: ‘Miss, I’m so sorry. I am entirely in the wrong. Please, go ahead. And can I buy your magazines for you? May I buy your lunch? Can I shine your shoes?’</p> <p>Why? Because I’d be thinking there is some chance this woman has a blog or a camera in her cellphone and could, if she so chose, tell the whole world about our encounter — entirely from her perspective — and my utterly rude, boorish, arrogant, thinks-he-can-butt-in-line behavior. Yikes!”</p></blockquote> <p>It goes without saying that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/opinion/14iht-edfriedman.1.19354062.html">defending Israel’s strategy of inflicting mass civilian casualties in Lebanon in 2006</a>, for example, does not in Friedman’s world qualify as rude, boorish, or arrogant behavior. <a href="http://wonkette.com/423209/redstate-guy-says-tom-friedman-acts-like-a-jackass-on-amtrak">This item from 2010</a> meanwhile suggests that Friedman is not overly preoccupied with the prospect of domestic cell phone cameras and blogs.</p> <p><strong><em>Punditry, like banking, seems to be a profession free of accountability. The more Friedman is wrong, the more Sunday morning shows he gets invited on. Is it time to Occupy Tom Friedman’s house? (He certainly has the room.)</em></strong></p> <p>It is definitely time to occupy Friedman’s house. I would advise incorporating an Arab and/or Muslim military into the endeavor and referring to the “occupation” only in quotation marks, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/13/opinion/the-sand-wall.html">as Friedman does</a> following the US invasion of Iraq.</p> <p>Incidentally, given the schizophrenic nature of his discourse, Friedman could conceivably be persuaded to advocate for the occupation of his own house if he were assured that in doing so he would somehow remain relevant to the <a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/10/20111012111830751959.html">effort to recuperate US glory</a>.</p> <p>Despite <a href="http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/1673.html">marrying into one of the one hundred richest families in the US</a>, Friedman recently attempted to co-opt Occupy Wall Street by classifying it as an <a href="http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1672209/occupy-wall-street-thomas-friedman.jhtml">“effective” movement</a> (in an interview with MTV, no less). Perhaps as a next step he should consider channeling his affection for Google Earth and the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/opinion/02friedman.html">role it allegedly played in sparking the Arab uprisings</a>—by alerting Bahrainis to the dimensions of the ruling family’s palaces—into an investigation of what his own 11,400-square-foot house <a href="http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/thomas-friedmans-house/view/?service=0">looks like from the air</a>.</p>Fire Tom Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12954125252756842447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099038587417637635.post-87530985575442602782011-11-06T10:00:00.000-05:002011-11-06T10:00:00.430-05:00The Imperial Messenger: Tom Friedman at Work - an Interview with Belén Fernández<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhj6inSb6D7i1h6XXzLZh-g8GXZ_AZdAcJxkuHIAIEWs507hQvmKgp-8KL1Hhkp4E7hw9fw5k7lJ4RBWugIxK3XrHJ5u8lWZ1bx8ieD7KZwEC0Tutnq35qrZs3WatrRyaXiitT-2TfBHNs/s1600/9781844677498-The-Imperial-Messenger.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 134px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhj6inSb6D7i1h6XXzLZh-g8GXZ_AZdAcJxkuHIAIEWs507hQvmKgp-8KL1Hhkp4E7hw9fw5k7lJ4RBWugIxK3XrHJ5u8lWZ1bx8ieD7KZwEC0Tutnq35qrZs3WatrRyaXiitT-2TfBHNs/s200/9781844677498-The-Imperial-Messenger.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5671711542303203634" border="0" /></a><em>Great news, Friedman haters! Tomorrow is the official release of </em>The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Friedman<em> at Work</em><em> by <em>Belén Fernández. It's the book I was born to read (or write, if I was smarter and not so lazy). Get this: Ms. <em><em>Fernández actually read every Tom Friedman column since 1995 -- 3 times each! I couldn't</em></em> wait to get my hands on a copy so I fanboyed Ms. <em><em>Fernández a slew of questions and she was gracious enough to answer. Part 1 of our interview is below. I'll post part 2 in the next day or two. To learn more about the book, please visit: <a href="http://www.versobooks.com/books/1024-the-imperial-messenger">http://www.versobooks.com/books/1024-the-imperial-messenger</a>.</em></em></em></em><p><strong><em>Why Tom Friedman? And can you talk a little about how the book is organized? </em></strong></p><p>My decision to write the book was not the product of any sort of long-standing obsession with Thomas Friedman, whose journalistic exploits I remained mercifully immune to for most of my existence up until 2009.</p><p>Then, about midway through that year, the idea came to me suddenly when I <a href="http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1774&dat=19991007&id=zsQdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vL4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=2880,1189939">noticed the $125 “Russian breakfast” option on the room-service menu at my five-star Havana hotel</a>.</p><p>Kidding. In 2009 I watched with simultaneous fascination and horror as Friedman flitted on pedagogical missions from Lebanon to Iraq to Afghanistan to Palestine to Africa, where he discovered the root cause of oppression in Zimbabwe by <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/08/25/why-didn-t-the-leopard-eat-tom-friedman/">going on safari in Botswana</a>.</p><p>Later that same year, Friedman’s decades-long lecture to the Arab/Muslim world on how to behave reached new levels of absurdity with his <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/opinion/16friedman.html">pronouncement</a> according to which:</p><blockquote><p>A corrosive mind-set has taken hold since 9/11. It says that Arabs and Muslims are only objects, never responsible for anything in their world, and we are the only subjects, responsible for everything that happens in their world. We infantilize them.</p><p>Arab and Muslims are not just objects. They are subjects. They aspire to, are able to and must be challenged to take responsibility for their world.</p></blockquote><p>Arab/Muslim subjectivity was of course called into question not only by the fact that Friedman in this very same article instructed the Islamic world to engage in a civil war equal in ferocity to the US civil war, but also by the fact that—approximately 10 days prior to criticizing the infantilizing of Arabs and Muslims—he had remarked to an amused Fareed Zakaria of CNN that Afghanistan was like a “<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX7zrra1i9g">special needs baby</a>” adopted by the US. (Friedman had refrained in this case from throwing in his regular complaint that the US was “<a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E7DC113FF937A3575BC0A9609C8B63">baby-sitting a civil war</a>” in Iraq—a complaint he apparently felt was not irreconcilable with his own <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/opinion/06friedman.html">declaration</a> of the need for an Iraqi civil war.)</p><p>Anyway, it was this imperialist hubris and unabashed Orientalism that originally motivated me to write the book, which stars Friedman as mascot for the degenerate mainstream media in the US. Friedman’s treatment of the Arab/Muslim world is the subject of the book’s second section; the first deals with his views on the need for US dominance in the world and the third deals with his special relationship with Israel.</p><p><strong><em>Did you really read every Friedman column since 1995? For me, getting through two a week is challenging enough. What was that like? Were there surprises? Was there a point when you were like, “What did I get myself into?”</em></strong></p><p>Yes, I really did read every Friedman column since 1995—three times, in fact. Ialso read a number of his articles from 1981 to 1995, primarily the ones that the <em>New York Times </em>did not require me to pay for.</p><p>“What did I get myself into?” is a conservative way of phrasing the existential questions that plagued me throughout this project. My notes are largely composed of expletives, except for the occasional expression of joy whenever Friedman would go on book leave or be otherwise absent from his column for an extended period of time. Vacuuming and other such activities suddenly became really fun.</p><p>As for surprises, persons familiar only with Friedman’s post-95 incarnation as foreign affairs columnist—in his words, “tourist with an attitude”—might be surprised to learn that in previous years he was not licensed to pontificate about the “collective madness” of Palestinians or to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/opinion/14iht-edfriedman.1.19354062.html">prescribe the mass extermination of Arab/Muslim civilians</a>, and that he even used to pen articles with titles like “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1984/11/22/world/israeli-troops-shoot-arab-student-dead-at-protest.html">Israeli Troops Shoot Arab Student Dead at Protest</a>.” His 1984 piece “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/23/travel/what-s-doing-in-jerusalem.html?pagewanted=all">What’s Doing in Jerusalem</a>,” in which he observed that “One of the most enjoyable ways to see some of Jerusalem's cultural offerings is to eat your way around them,” meanwhile underscores how much better off the world might be if Friedman’s musings on the Middle East had been restricted to the relatively innocuous realm of cuisine:</p><blockquote><p> “Israeli duckling in a champagne and orange sauce is the house specialty at Jerusalem's premier French restaurant, the Mishkenot Sha'ananim on Yemin Moshe Street (225110), overlooking the Old City from the west. Dinner for two with wine approaches $100.”</p></blockquote><p>Less surprising, but nonetheless revealing, is Friedman’s admission in his book <em>Longitudes and Attitudes</em> that, as “tourist with an attitude,” he has “total freedom, and an almost unlimited budget, to explore.” This only renders all the more distressing the fact that he does not utilize said budget or freedom to conduct any meaningful human interaction or to report international reality beyond the confines of the mentality espoused by proponents of US dominance and corporate globalization.</p><p>In the same book he boasts that the “only person who sees my two columns each week before they show up in the newspaper is a copy editor who edits them for grammar and spelling,” and that for the duration of his columnist career up to this point he has “never had a conversation with the publisher of <em>The New York Times</em> about any opinion I’ve adopted— before or after any column I’ve written.” Though it may come as no surprise that the <em>Times</em> does not feel the need to prohibit its employees from advocating for things prohibited by international law, such as collective punishment, the publisher might consider at least subjecting copy editors to a lesson in rectifying <a href="http://www.nypress.com/article-19271-flat-n-all-that.html">metaphorical incoherence</a>.</p><p><strong><em>Do you come away with a better understanding of Friedman’s popularity? He doesn’t write well, he’s not an original thinker, he’s not smart (watching him try to talk about anything besides his own columns is painful), he’s not entertaining. For me, it’s far easier to understand why people like Rush Limbaugh than Friedman. Did your research give you any insight into the Friedman phenomenon?</em></strong></p><p>I think Mike Whitney explained the phenomenon well in a 2005 <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2005/02/07/tom-friedman-scribe-for-new-age-imperialism/">article</a> for <em>CounterPunch</em>, written in response to Friedman’s approval of US-inflicted carnage in Iraq:</p><blockquote><p>Friedman offers these outrageously callous judgments using his ‘trademark’ affable tenor that oozes familiarity and hauteur. The normal Friedman article assumes the tone of a friendly stranger, plopped on a neighboring barstool, pontificating on the world’s many intricacies to a less-knowledgeable companion. Isn’t that Friedman?</p><p>‘Let me explain the world to you in terms that even you can understand.’</p><p>And is he good at it? You bet. American liberals love Friedman; his folksy lingo, his home-spun humor, his engaging anecdotes. Beneath the surface, of course, is the hard-right ethos that pervades his every thought and word but, ‘what the heck’, no one’s perfect.</p></blockquote><p>Indeed, Friedman <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/30/opinion/it-s-no-vietnam.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm">sells the Iraq war</a> as “the most radical-liberal revolutionary war the U.S. has ever launched” despite making subsequent assessments such as “The neocon strategy may have been necessary to trigger reform in Iraq and the wider Arab world, but it will not be sufficient unless it is followed up by what I call a ‘geo-green’ strategy.” As I point out in my book, it is difficult to determine how many true “geo-greens” would advocate for the tactical contamination of the earth’s soil with depleted uranium munitions; why not introduce a doctrine of neoconservationism?</p><p>Other examples of Friedman’s hard-right ethos masquerading as liberal include his claim to support social safety nets, which in the wake of the 2008 financial recession quickly mutates into a campaign to slash entitlements worldwide. Friedman <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/opinion/09friedman.html">announces</a> that, although it’s “really sweet” that elderly Brits enjoy subsidized heating and can ride local buses for free, Britain can no longer afford such excesses. Of course, Britain has somehow historically been able to afford other excesses, and Friedman <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/opinion/22friedman.html">lauded Tony Blair</a> in 2005 as "one of the most important British prime ministers ever" based on the fact that he had gotten the Labour Party “to firmly embrace the free market and globalization—sometimes kicking and screaming” and that he had chosen to promote democracy abroad by anti-democratically taking his country to war: "In deciding to throw in Britain's lot with President Bush on the Iraq war, Mr. Blair not only defied the overwhelming antiwar sentiment of his own party, but public opinion in Britain generally."</p><p>As for Friedman’s endearing “affable tenor” and “folksy lingo” referenced by Whitney, other examples include the 2001 <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/09/opinion/foreign-affairs-beware-of-icebergs.html">assessment</a> that an American victory in Afghanistan is possible as long as the US recognizes that “Dorothy, this ain’t Kansas.” Folksy lingo like “God bless America” and “<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwFaSpca_3Q">suck. On. This</a>”—the latter being what US soldiers are supposed to tell Iraqis via a “big stick”—meanwhile presumably finds resonance among audiences seeking to defy feelings of individual and/or national inadequacy.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><em>Tune in tomorrow (or the day after that) when </em><span><em>Belén and I discuss reincarnation, Charlie Rose, and Occupying Tom Friedman's House. But don't wait until then to <a href="http://www.versobooks.com/books/1024-the-imperial-messenger" target="_blank">order your copy of the book</a>!<br /></em></span></p>Fire Tom Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12954125252756842447noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099038587417637635.post-87405392316305485212011-10-03T22:34:00.007-04:002011-10-04T13:02:17.630-04:00Tommy the RobotThat explains everything, I thought, when I read the headline in Tommy's <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/opinion/sunday/friedman-how-did-the-robot-end-up-with-my-job.html">lastest</a>: "How Did the Robot End Up With My Job?" The tone-deafness, the endless repetition ("<a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2884">the next six months will be critical</a>"), the <a href="http://firetomfriedman.blogspot.com/2010/05/tommys-spare-tire.html">mangled metaphors</a>, the difficulty mastering syntax, the callousness about human life. Tommy is a robot!*<br /><br />Alas. The headline was a cruel tease. It's turns out its your job that's been outsourced, not Friedman's:<br /><p> </p><blockquote><p>I’VE done a lot of television book interviews lately, and I continue to be struck at what a difference there is in the technology in just a few years’ time. </p> <p> Here is a typical evening at a major cable TV network: arrive at Washington studio and be asked to sign in by a contract security guard. Be met by either a young employee who appears to still be in college or an older person who seems to have hung on with tenure. Have your nose powdered by that person. Have your microphone attached by that person. Be positioned in the studio chair by that person, and then look directly into a robotic camera being manipulated by someone in a control room in New York and speak to whoever the host is wherever he or she is. That’s it: one employee, a robot and you. </p></blockquote><p>Tommy's math is a little telling here. He actually describes 4 jobs -- the security guard, the nose powderer/microphone attacher, the robotic camera operator, and the host -- but I'm guessing Friedman only counts his fellow bloviator, the host, as working. But regardless, it's a little touching that Tommy seems to miss his old makeup artist from the last time he made the talk show rounds. Maybe he's even a little concerned about all those Americans who don't have cushy pundit jobs?</p><p>Ha!<br /></p><p></p><blockquote>It has never been harder to find a job and never been easier — for those prepared for this world — to invent a job or find a customer. Anyone with the spark of an idea can start a company overnight, using a credit card, while accessing brains, brawn and customers anywhere.</blockquote><p></p><p></p>Tommy goes on to point out that, thanks to sites like freelancer.com, you can make $268 designing a functioning dune buggy! By my calculations, all you need to make $50 K/year is 200 clients who want dune buggy designs. (Where's <a href="http://www.charliemanson.com/family-5.htm">the Manson family </a>when you need them?).<br /><br />And dune buggy design isn't the only opportunity out there. If you can come up with 6 formulations of chewing gum for the Australian market, you could make $375. That's $63 - enough to feed your family for literally days! -- per gum formulation.<br /><br />The point is that if you're struggling, you're not really trying. And that you're getting what you deserve since, more than ever, we live in a global meritocracy.<br /><blockquote>The term “outsourcing” is also out of date. There is no more “out” anymore. Firms can and will seek the best leaders and talent to achieve their goals anywhere in the world.</blockquote>So cheer up, jobless! Your job hasn't moved overseas because companies are exploiting a cheaper version of you. It's actually because they've found a better version of you. Isn't it more comforting to know that the system works?<br /><br />Of course, Tommy's been singing the flat world/technology "wow"/free trade song for years, but there's something about the present moment that makes even off-key. It's telling that on the same day that Friedman filed this piece of crap, his fellow op-eders <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/opinion/sunday/kristof-the-bankers-and-the-revolutionaries.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss">Kristoff </a>and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/opinion/hippies-and-hipsters-exhale.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss">Blow</a> wrote about the exhilarating Occupy Wall Street movement. But maybe I'm being too hard on Tommy. A robot can only do what it's been programmed to.*<br /><br />Fire Tom Friedman<br /><br />*My view of robots is based primarily on bad fifties sci-fi. My apologies to today's robots who are undoubtedly much smarter, kinder, and better writers than Tom Friedman.Fire Tom Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12954125252756842447noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099038587417637635.post-71786773221460370562011-09-08T14:35:00.005-04:002011-09-12T10:07:32.396-04:00Tom Friedman's Finest HourDo you remember September 12, 2001? We were all in a daze, trying to make sense of the unthinkable. We were glued to our TV screens watching the same footage over and over and hoping to hear about successful rescue efforts. We were angry. We were scared. We were traumatized. And amidst the chaos and anguish, one clear-headed rational voice rose above the din and pointed the way forward: Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas L. Friedman.<br /><br />While others sobbed uncontrollably or called for Muslim blood, Tommy urged America to respond rationally and use the attacks to dramatically alter some of our most disastrous policies. Who can forget when Tommy, with the towers still smoldering, called for a $1/gallon gas tax?<br /><br />Tommy certainly can't. In yesterday's column, he repeats his assertion that America and Bush botched the response to 9/11 because they didn't listen to him!<br /><blockquote>[Bush] used 9/11 as an excuse to lower taxes, to start two wars that — for the first time in our history — were not paid for by tax increases, and to create a costly new entitlement in Medicare prescription drugs. Imagine where we’d be today if on the morning of 9/12 Bush had announced (as some of us advocated) a “Patriot Tax” of $1 per gallon of gas to pay for education, infrastructure and government research, to help finance our wars and to slash our dependence on Middle East oil.</blockquote>I wanted to relive Tommy's most glorious moment so I went back and read his post 9-11 columns.<br /><br />On 9/13/01, Tommy's first column after the attacks, he urged America to fight "<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/13/opinion/13FRIE.html">World War Three</a>."<br /><br />Not exactly a gas tax, but maybe he didn't literally mean that he said that on September 12. Let's see what else he wrote.<br /><br />The next day, he wrote that the U.S. must <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/opinion/14FRIE.html?pagewanted=1">"retaliate ferociously."</a><br /><br />OK. Even Tom Friedman deserves a couple of days to blow off some steam. Let's see what Tommy wrote on <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/25/opinion/foreign-affairs-terrorism-game-theory.html?pagewanted=1">September 25, 2001</a>:<p> </p><p></p><blockquote><p>I went to the ballgame Friday night, took in Dvorak's ''New World'' Symphony at the Kennedy Center Saturday, took my girls out to breakfast in Washington Sunday morning, and then flew to the University of Michigan. Heck, I even went out yesterday and bought some stock. What a great country. </p> <p> I wonder what Osama bin Laden did in his cave in Afghanistan yesterday? </p></blockquote><p>Wow. Childishly taunting bin Laden from Bethesda. If only Bush had listened to Tommy! Still, I'll keep reading. Gotta be a Patriot Tax in here somewhere.</p><p>Hmmm, nothing in 2001. Let's try 2002. There's the columns <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/18/opinion/iraq-upside-down.html?scp=31&sq=iraq&st=nyt">urging an attack on Iraq</a> but no Patriot Tax. Wow, this is nothing like Tommy and I remember it.<br /></p><p>Wait - Here it is! On <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/05/opinion/the-real-patriot-act.html?scp=2&sq=%22patriot+tax%22&st=nyt">October 5, 2003</a>! Two years later. With Tommy's wars in full swing. What courage!<br /></p><p>Shouldn't Tommy's editors refuse to print his lies about himself? Shouldn't one of the hosts of the endless talk shows that Tommy appears on point out that the US did exactly what Tommy wanted -- attack Afghanistan and Iraq -- and that's one reason we're fucked right now? Is there a profession that's more free from accountability that punditry?</p><p>Fire Tom Friedman<br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Fire Tom Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12954125252756842447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099038587417637635.post-17574821688367984152011-08-10T12:33:00.004-04:002011-08-10T13:52:46.704-04:00When Tommy met TommyTommy is justifiably catching <a href="http://my.firedoglake.com/scarecrow/2011/08/09/tom-friedmans-fantasy-dream-is-americas-nightmare/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed">a lot</a> of <a href="http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/08/10/centrist-orgasm/">shit</a> for <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/10/opinion/the-day-our-leaders-got-unstuck.html?_r=1">today's train wreck</a> of a column, but it's one of my favorites. For years, a standard Tommy column gimmick has been to pen a letter from some world leader like <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/opinion/24iht-edfriedman.1.16446152.html">President Bush</a> or the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/opinion/05friedman.html">Chinese Ministry of State Security</a>. The point of these columns, like his recent calls for a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24friedman.html?ref=todayspaper">third party made of Tom Friedmans</a>, is that if the world leaders thought (shudder) and wrote (triple shudder!) exactly like Tommy does, all of our problems would disappear.
<br />
<br />Today, Tommy ups the ante, envisioning a fantasy press conference in which the roles of Obama, Boehner, McConnoll, Reid and Pelosi are all played by Tom Friedman. Both Boehner and Obama give long-winded speeches where they promise to be more like Tom Friedman (including by never mentioning those icky wars that Tommy doesn't like to talk about any more.) At one point, Tommy Obama and Tommy Boehner even hug. And as a result of all this Tommy-on-Tommy love, the stock market surges like never before!
<br />
<br />It's a bold column -- not in its ideas which are boring, conventional, and wrong -- but in Tommy's openness about the fact that he dreams (a la Buster Keaton in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq1j-G7ZSuc"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Playhouse</span></a>) about a world inhabited by no one but himself. Which is almost enough to make you feel a little better about the world we actually live in now.
<br />
<br />Fire Tom Friedman
<br />Fire Tom Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12954125252756842447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099038587417637635.post-24191013980295637772011-04-28T10:52:00.007-04:002011-04-28T11:02:52.559-04:00Wondering why we're fucked?Ryan Lizza, in this week's New Yorker, describing how then-Senator Obama <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/02/110502fa_fact_lizza?mbid=social_retweet">got himself up to speed on foreign policy</a>:<br /><blockquote>Obama had always read widely, and now he was determined to get a deeper education. He read popular books on foreign affairs by Fareed Zakaria and Thomas Friedman.<br /><br /></blockquote>Almost makes you nostalgic for Bush reading <span style="font-style: italic;">My Pet Goat.</span><br /><br />Fire Tom Friedman (and those who read him for a "deeper education").Fire Tom Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12954125252756842447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099038587417637635.post-88046981120088795812011-04-13T15:36:00.005-04:002011-04-13T18:27:17.607-04:00The Revolution Will Have Room Service!Today's Tommy column starts off with what might be <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/13/opinion/13friedman.html?_r=2&hp">his greatest opening paragraph ever</a>:<br /><blockquote>When I was in Cairo during the Egyptian uprising, I wanted to change hotels one day to be closer to the action and called the Marriott to see if it had any openings. The young-sounding Egyptian woman who spoke with me from the reservations department offered me a room and then asked: “Do you have a corporate rate?” I said, “I don’t know. I work for The New York Times.” There was a silence on the phone for a few moments, and then she said: “ Can I ask you something?” Sure. “Are we going to be O.K.? I’m worried.” </blockquote>There's so much great stuff in here, starting with the fact that there is no fucking way this conversation actually took place. I'm pretty sure Tommy cribbed the first part from an ad in an in-flight magazine: "Marriott -- when you want to be closer to the action" (or "Some revolutions are too historic for the Hilton!"). There's the fact that in Tommy's fantasies, worried (female!) Egyptians were asking the great pundit how things were going to turn out. And then there are the brilliant little touches like the irrelevant banter about a corporate rate and the pregnant pause before her first question.<br /><br />But if you think that paragraph was hilarious the first time you read it, try this exercise: Re-read, only this time picture it as a black and white movie. The "Egyptian" hotel receptionist is played by an American actress who can do ethnic. Her "Do you have a corporate rate" is sultry, but when she asks if she's going to be OK, she's a vulnerable little girl. And Tommy? He's as hard-boiled as they come.<br /><br />I think the rest of the column was about how Arabs countries are full of tribalistic savages who don't take naturally to democracy like Europeans do. But to be honest, I haven't really got that far. I just keep watching Tommy's movie.<br /><br />Fire Tom FriedmanFire Tom Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12954125252756842447noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5099038587417637635.post-3296429171523983712011-04-06T22:00:00.001-04:002011-04-07T14:21:04.136-04:00Answer the Question!We have our marching orders.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2290509/">Jacob Weisberg:</a><br /><blockquote>[M]ore than anyone else in politics, Rep. Ryan has made a serious attempt to grapple with the long-term fiscal issue the country faces. He has a largely coherent, workable set of answers. If you don't like them, now you need to come up with something better.</blockquote><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/opinion/05brooks.html?ref=davidbrooks">David Brooks</a>:<br /><blockquote>Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman, has his budget. Where’s yours?</blockquote><a href="http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/04/where-obama-feared-to-tread.html">Andrew Sullivan</a>:<blockquote>And the Democrats and Obama now have to offer a response. The question I'll be asking is quite simply: how would <em>they</em> save $5.8 trillion from the federal budget over the next decade? Tell us, please.</blockquote>It's hilarious how the guardians of seriousness who claim that they want a serious adult conversation more than anything resort to patronizing goading to try to get that discussion going. But Fire Tom Friedman is a tad emotionally stunted and thus rarely backs away from a patronizing goad. So despite the fact that I'm neither Obama nor a Democrat, I'm going to take the Sullivan challenge: 5.8 trillion, here I come!<br /><br />I must admit I was a little intimidated -- 5.8 trillion! -- until I saw this chart:<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTdPu83dKcLEV848pqNIru7hWNBghWQ_cDKHEMgp71D_0DsuN4wO6jnq1AzLiaDY0VVnxYg7lIrxdxwgC5z81MwECZW8lWiCs9k-XPxxk-fts9nqPX1ozMm-tnCy0dF8C80pbWi_7TLr0/s1600/06ryan-chart-popup.gif"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 245px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTdPu83dKcLEV848pqNIru7hWNBghWQ_cDKHEMgp71D_0DsuN4wO6jnq1AzLiaDY0VVnxYg7lIrxdxwgC5z81MwECZW8lWiCs9k-XPxxk-fts9nqPX1ozMm-tnCy0dF8C80pbWi_7TLr0/s400/06ryan-chart-popup.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5592640238577558066" border="0" /></a>The key line there is the one at the bottom. Total revenue changes = -4.2 trillion. So while Ryan may be proposing 5.8 trillion in spending cuts, he's also proposing 4.2 trillion in tax cuts. Now I've never subtracted trillions before but I'm pretty sure that 5.8 trillion in spending cuts - 4.2 trillion in lost revenue means that the <span style="font-style: italic;">savings</span> of this plan is only 1.6 trillion. So if we don't hand out any tax cuts, we only need to come up with 1.6 trillion in cuts.<br /><br />Still, 1.6 trillion. But wait: 1 trillion of Ryan's "spending cuts" comes from ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. God let's fucking hope so. But if the wars end, all of us who are designing budgets -- serious policy wonk geniuses like Paul Ryan and Internet cranks like myself -- get to count that "savings" the same. So if Ryan is taking credit for 1 trillion spending cut if the wars end, so am I. This isn't so hard.<br /><br />Still, 600 billion. But wait. That's over ten years! Politicians like to present their spending cuts over ten-year periods because it makes the #'s sound much more impressive. (They also measure their penises in centimeters). So I just need to cut $60 billion a year and I've matched Ryan. I reckon $60 billion out of the that $550 billion annual defense budget wouldn't even be missed.<br /><br />I did it! I saved the U.S. the same amount of money over ten years as super genius Paul Ryan. And it took me 43 seconds. Granted, I didn't get specific about the defense cuts but I'm pretty sure if I had another 68 seconds I could bang that out, too.<br /><br />And you know what? I could keep going. I could raise taxes on the wealthy. End corporate welfare. End the wars a lot faster than Ryan wants to. Make GE pay something, anything, in taxes. And now I'm kicking Ryan's ass in reducing the debt. Look at me, mom- I'm serious! And I haven't thrown Grandma out of her nursing home or kicked anyone's kid off dialysis. (Oh wait, I think that means I'm not serious.)<br /><br />Of course, it's not that hard. Take away the bullshit trillion for Iraq and Afghanistan, (and you really should; taking credit for savings for wars you think someone else might end one day is beyond pathetic; now if Ryan actually threatened to cut off funding for the wars, I'd not only give him his trillion back, I'd retract all the means thing I've written about him) , and only 12.5% of Paul's courageous cuts (600 billion) goes to reducing the debt. The other 87.5 % goes to the rich and corporations. Pretty serious stuff.<br /><br />Now if Sullivan issues a challenge to come up with a better illustration of Shock Doctrine economics than Paul Ryan's budget, I think I'll sit that one out.Fire Tom Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12954125252756842447noreply@blogger.com0