- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Since there's no going back, going forward with something that resembles - however imperfectly - rational, objective, and participatory rule is only another sign of failure because?-- unreal2
You can try to answer the second part of your question since you're the only one to have asked it.
As for the first part, "going back" is called reading and learning from history. The history of Friedman is that of a man who is dead and deadly wrong and then lies about it.
By "going back" on his writings one learns to reveal him for the fraud that he is and hopefully by doing so we will help others to understand to whom it is they are listening to when he speaks, or to whom it is they are reading when he writes.
Only good can come from making the effort to think critically and then ostracize the cancer that is Tom Friedman from the highly visible perch that he sits upon. At least if more people knew what a fool and a liar he is, it stands to reason that more people would cease listening to him.
