Comments on: Friedman the Scholar

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:48:25 +0000

The tragedy is that that book got him promoted out of a job he did well into one he does poorly.

The Peter Principle.

By: PD Shaw

PD Shaw — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:03:49 +0000

The added chapter mainly dealt with Friedman's thoughts on the Oslo accords. As he is writing from Washington at the time, it lacks the interest that his reporting from Lebanon had.

By: Jim Henley

Jim Henley — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:41:46 +0000

I can just about find a charitable reading of Friedman's "nothing has changed" impulse, based on a talk about the book he gave at my then-bookstore, but it's a charitable reading that can't also explain "but wait! internet! whoah!" So oh well. The hell of it is, From Beirut to Jerusalem is a damn good book of the sort that Friedman couldn't write these days. Because it's a reporter's book. Back then he didn't just talk to cab drivers and COOs, he talked to everyone. And he was on the ground day-to-day in Lebanon when that took guts. He was a guy who would talk to high officials in the Israeli government and the PLO, and grunts in the various armies and militias. There's a nice section about having lunch with, I think, Amos Oz. The tragedy is that that book got him promoted out of a job he did well into one he does poorly.

By: odograph

odograph — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:40:02 +0000

I know there are are Friedman "haters" (not in the literal sense, in the pop sense). It strikes me now that they are a little like Malcolm Gladwell haters. It isn't so much that the guy is always wrong or hugely wrong. It's more that some seem to expect a lot more from them ... that they always be hugely correct? That every idea be an insight never glimpsed before by man?

FWIW, I think Friedman is right about half the time, which is a pretty good average for a media darling. Gladwell maybe 3/4. Plenty good.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:01:30 +0000

As an illustration of the changes in the entire region consider Saudi Arabia. In 1989 the population was roughly 16 million. Now its population is roughly 29 million. Said another way nearly half the people in the country hadn't been born when his book was originally published. Can anyone doubt that is attended by social changes we can only speculate on?