Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist with a convincing solution for every problem in the world, is my favorite anti-hero. Most of the time, I disagree with what he has to say. He is too sure about his ways, too convinced of his genius, and too confident of the infallibility of his points. He is pedantic, patronizing and pontificating. Often, he is wrong.
But he does his homework most of the time, he researches before he writes, his opinions are invariably entangled with facts. I like to argue, and it's hard to argue with someone who seems to have the facts on his side. I am forced to read, question and research for myself. Keeps my mind on its toes and me informed on current affairs.
In the one Thomas Friedman book I own, a collection of columns spanning the weeks leading up to and the months after 9/11 (*), he claims that he is free to say whatever he wants. His editor advises only on linguistic and stylistic questions. Or not at all, as it turns out. His latest, about the dark machinations of Toyota lobbying, has a title that makes anyone who is only remotely linguistically inclined wince with pain. Not only is it grammatically incorrect, but what's the point of using French when talking about a Japanese automaker?
On the other hand, the revelation (to me anyway – not a topic I necessarily care about) of Toyota's lobbying efforts and speculation that it's all a ploy to steer the Big Three towards bankruptcy faster is quite interesting.
(*) Just the other day, he was sort of looking back on 9/11 and calling desperately (and in a uniquely self-flagellating way) for Americans to look forward. More power to him, in that case.
ps. And how cool is the New York Times jiffy that, upon double clicking of a word, pops up a window with a vast dictionary entry of that word. Click yourself smart.
No comments:
Post a Comment