The blog Eschaton has a post which looks to be from last year about Tom Friedman of “Friedman unit” fame and Richard Cohen, whose writings disgrace the Washington Post.
You would think that advocating indiscriminate killing of people in some Middle Eastern country – any country will do! – just “because we could” would be the kind of thing which would cause people to respond with disgust and revlusion, and perhaps revoke your NYT columnist card. But, as we’ve learned so many times over the years, there’s really nothing you can say or write about the awesomeness of killing Arabs for random reasons which will stop your cocktail party invitations from coming. Friedman, I suppose, was at least not quite as narcissistic as Richard Cohen, who thought killing people in Iraq was a good idea because it would be “therapeutic” for our country. Dead innocent people so Cohen could save a bit on his shrink bill.
But the problem with Tom Friedman is that he’s very serious and taken very seriously. Unlike Maureen Dowd whose gibberish has lost its influence over the years, Tommy “Suck On This” Friedman is still The Most Serious Foreign Affairs Man In America. When Tom Friedman speaks, people listen, even as his metaphors become as bad as his advice.
So on Suck On This Day we should do our part to convince as many people as we can that Tom Friedman is a blithering idiot and a moral monster. Suck On This Tommy!
I haven’t figured out yet what day is Suck on This Day, but it seems to be in May.
And here’s the video:
“‘…well, suck. on. this.’ That, Charlie, is what this war was about. We could have hit Saudi Arabia, it was part of that bubble. Could’ve hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could. That’s the real truth.”
Explanation of Friedman unit from Wikipedia:
The Friedman, or Friedman Unit (F.U.), is a tongue-in-cheek neologism coined by blogger Atrios (Duncan Black) on May 21, 2006.
A Friedman is a unit of time equal to six months in the future. The Huffington Post cited it as the “Best New Phrase” of 2006.
The term is in reference to a May 16, 2006 article by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) detailing journalist Thomas Friedman’s repeated use of “the next six months” as the period in which, according to Friedman, “we’re going to find out…whether a decent outcome is possible” in the Iraq War. As documented by FAIR, Friedman had been making such six-month predictions for a period of two and a half years, on at least fourteen different occasions, starting with a column in the November 30, 2003 edition of The New York Times, in which he stated: “The next six months in Iraq—which will determine the prospects for democracy-building there—are the most important six months in U.S. foreign policy in a long, long time.”
The term has been used in general to describe any pronouncement of a critical period for the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Such pronouncements have been made by numerous politicians and military officials involved in the war.