He needs to look at the very, very expensive "projection of power" otherwise known as USA military bases all over the world. These things cost money; real money.

But closing these bases will never happen. And you are constantly going to end up being disappointed.

Isn't it better to be realistic and work towards minimizing the military as much as possible rather than this kind of Utopian goal that just isn't going to happen?

I'm even smaller than that.

Another contrarian from Story Book Land chimes in with predictable nonsense. Tantaena animis caelestibus irae?

I do believe we have, if not a winner, certainly a weiner. (of the two-inch flaccid variety, as Pedinska helpfully pointed out, putting herself in play to win Hurl Check...)

I'm even smaller than that.

I once thought I was ginormous, then I woke up and realized I was R2D2 (and isn't he a little fellow?). Wow, unreal (2r).

And, in anticipation, "you guys think you're so smart! Why don't you join menses, or something?!"

sorry.

Man, I think that error ruined my whole post. Like a sharply pointed spear blunted by the spelling-error-leather-jerkin. Lousy Romans. Thank God the Dark Ages (that is, before light bulbs were invented) beat 'em down.

...didn't mean to start a confessional today so, as the saying goes, "It ain't the meat, it's the motion."

Unfortunately, our current contestant for Jebbie's Troll of the Day award appears to be lacking in not only the above categories, but that of imagination as well.

Tim3, if our visitor is, indeed, of the male affectation, then joining "menses" will do him no good. It's not a club he can aspire to with his current equipment, however challenged it may be. ;-}

How do these jokers do it and still keep their jobs? From supporting the Iraq War to so-called 'free markets,' these clowns are almost always wrong.

Friedman's The World is Flat touted globalization and 'free markets.' But when things turned a little sour, he's all for Big Government intervention. He should at least be consistent.

Tim3, if our visitor is, indeed, of the male affectation, then joining "menses" will do him no good. It's not a club he can aspire to with his current equipment, however challenged it may be. ;-}

You know, I assumed "he" was "male" (shall we say?) given the attitude. But perhaps I'm wrong. If he's female (?), then what's "she" defending, apart from something-something size? I still believe that menses is her penultimate goal. After all, only the smartest in my school (oddly, they were all women) strove for that. And R2D2 is, I suspect, on the cusp of puberty and, thus, enlightment (although, as a father, which I'm not, that's probably too much to ask for).

It is to laugh at that all friedman's images are of fictional and/or cartoon characters. He seems to be able to talk only in terms of trite, shallow, 2-dimensional images, as if he were addressing a group of kindergarteners. Others have mentioned several factors which (as usual) lead me to believe that friedman is paid by the c.i.a. Several points may be worth considering:

-as mentioned, the nyt is losing $$, and has cut news staff.

However, tommy seems to have an unlimited travel budget. Knowing that the very rich don't pay for anything (ie. he is not self-funded), his travel funds may be coming from 'somewhere else'.

-his 'arguments' always seem to fit those one assumes of the c.i.a.: return to the good old days of the cold war, perpetual militarism, hegemony, and pro-m.i.c. None of his reasons deviate from some inherent benefit to the c.i.a.

-his excuses for militarism are completely red-herring; he never discusses any of the real reasons behind the wars.

Why don't you stop the group groping and get back on point.

Friedman's putative revisionism aside.

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?

It is very likely that these bases will never be closed. I will not be surprised at all, it is expected that only the fall of the empire will close the bases or stop the slaughter of innocents around the globe.

However, it is a good way to measure the man Obama and if he does want "change".

He could save billions by getting our troops out of Europe and Asia as just a start. Who could argue that America needs a base in Japan or Korea? Do these bases keep us "safe"? Could we spend that money on our own poor?

Who would argue that we must have troops in Germany to protect this country? Does a base in Germany really protect Atlanta or Reno?

Well, kids . . . Why don't you stop the group groping and get back on point. Friedman's putative revisionism aside.

Isn't that the point of Glenn Greenwald's post, that "putative revisionism"? I wouldn't call it "putative," since that suggests that Friedman consciously revised his position; I think he simply ignored what he wrote in the past and hoped no one would notice. You'd think he wasn't aware of Google (or Glenn Greenwald, for that matter).

P.S. I like to grope.

Friedman's putative revisionism aside.

What you just attempted to shunt to the sidelines is the exact topic of Glenn's post, i.e. "Teh Point". It's even stated in the title, which is conveniently posted at the top of each page of comments, for people such as yourself who appear to be challenged in ways both mental and physical.

The purpose of "going back" in this context is to show how Friedman, like so many of his cohorts, refuses to learn from, or even admit to, his past failures. That was, and will remain, Glenn's point irrespective of the amount of arm- (or other appendage-) waving you engage in.

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.