Given Friedman's spectacularly bad record of punditry on issues including globalism, unregulated markets, property boom, the Iraq invasion, Islamic terrorism, the notorious Friedman Units (6 months until Iraq victory!) and now his bizarre contention that Israel's slaughter of non-combatants will "educate" Palestinians into blaming Hamas, it's hard NOT to conclude that Friedman is foolish. His unctuous urbanity, occaisionally well-turned phrase and and Beltway influence notwithstanding, it's hard to think of anyone who has been as catastrophically wrong about everything they've discussed as Friedman.

If that doesn't qualify him as a fool I can't imagine what would.

A really ironic aspect to the CNN footage of WP airbursts over Gaza--they never, once, identified it.

We all remember the 'military analysts' flap, in which CNN played such a large role. The media are loaded with military experts--CNN alone has many at its beck and call--and yet not one of these outlets ever once turned to their military experts as asked--"Hey, isn't that WP??".

I thought that was why the media hired all these guys--so they could identify and comment on just these kinds of things. During the Iraq invasion, these guys were all over the media, explaining strategy, weapon systems, smart bombs, chemical agents--it was "all weapons, all the time". Now, it appears that all these experts have disappeared during the Gaza 'coverage'.

Cool. This I have to see.

I have disliked Tom Friedman ever since I read the "World is Flat." The man seems to be quite impressed with his own expertise. He is also incredibly self absorbed. I watched him insult a theater full of people (in a speech he made overseas) with anecdotes meant to be humorous to an American audience. He did not realize his gaff. This is not a good sign for someone who positions himself as an expert on international relations. That he also saw fit to explain the wonders of the internet to a room full of programmers is further proof of his self-insulation. He seems to suffer from the delusion that only Tom Friedman is privy to the answers and it is his sacred duty to inform the rest of us.

I for one am somewhat relieved that he came out in support of the Gaza disaster. At least I now know I am right in my personal assessment: If Friedman is for it, it is probably wrong. Most of his forays into foreign policy writing have been as wrong as a broken barometer, capable of being correct only for an instant, and never able to react to changes.

Shouldn't Freidman at least explore the Gazan point of view and make mention that cluster bombs and white phosphorus are not especially effective against a hidden militia? Or that an Israeli incursion in force legitimizes further violence by Hamas (and other groups) against Israeli civilians and Jews around the world? The only way the world becomes flat is if we allow this kind of violence to go unchecked and all that is left at the end is ashes and dust. Maybe Tom should consider a more human equation before opening his mouth again.

Would it be too far out to think that Israel's current actions in Gaza (on the justification Friedman supplies) would eventually lead to an elimination of the Palestinian people? Really, how can Israel be safe as long as any of them lives?

It's a chilling thought, but nothing that the Israeli government is doing now is inconsistent with it.

I remember watching CNN about a week ago, and hearing the anchorman commenting on how odd the smoke looked. But obviously, figuring out that kind of stuff is Al Jazeera's job. We're CNN, we just show you the pictures!

I'm comparing your description,

What it generally looks like when airburst isn't much at first. Small white poof where it went off, but the giveaway is that you can see what look like fragments streaming smoke behind them (they're felt wedges impregnated with the stuff). A few seconds later, after the wedges have dispersed, it blossoms into immense, solid white clouds of smoke, as if a thunderhead cloud were sitting on the ground.

to this photograph bamage linked to in a previous thread, and mentioned again here (link is also at my sig).

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5447590.ece

What I see at that link looks exactly as you described.

The problem is not that "it doesn't work" - the problem is that IT IS WRONG!

Music to my ears, ScuzzaMan!

I've been trying to think through exactly why I am so resentful and distrustful of what I've called the Golden Calf of "pragmatism" being polished to a dazzling shine and set back up on a pedestal in honor of our new "non-ideological", non-judgemental, post-partisan, über-pragmatic PEOTUS.

I'm still thrashing it out, but your comment exactly fits my provisional complaint that this new mania to do "what works" disingenuously-- in fact, mendaciously-- pretends that ethical and moral issues are either foregone conclusions, or will take care of themselves as long as political executives concentrate on finding "workable" approaches. And Obama supporters act like Obama's criticisms of perpetual bitter and divisive disagreement, gridlock, and fractiousness between the twin organs of our duopoly is the equivalent of Louis Pasteur's discovery that disease is spread by germs.

The tension between ideals and practice has existed since mankind noticed the difference; it's not like this distinction just came up. But it irks me no end that "doers", especially Obama-supporting "doers", so persistently and instinctively ignore or trivialize the question of rights and wrongs, and subordinate such a troublesome and often perplexing matter to the amoral, anesthetic priority of "what works".

IMO, this is the same dilemma that arose in the disagreement over whether Gitmo detainees and other Scary and Dangerous Guys extra-legally detained by the Coalition of the Wilted should be released. The ethical answer is "yes". But the pragmatist is dissatisfied with an answer that has certain negative implications or consequences. So "yes" becomes "yes, but... what will work in a way that kinda-sorta acknowledges that the detention may have been defective in some respects, but still lets us Good Guys detain or otherwise oppress and control the Bad Guys-- who we all really know in our gut deserve detention and/or punishment anyway?" In other words, what's the pragmatic solution?

To hell with the "pragmatic" solution, dammit! Just do the right thing, as someone once said.

IMO, today's pragmatic solution becomes tomorrow's new intractable problem. So, um, it doesn't work, you might say.