The Good Friedman

I feel kind of bad that my book opens with something about the evils of Tom Friedman at just the moment when he's returned to columnizing with a new focus on environment and energy issues where I generally agree with him. Today column, for example, is all good.

At any rate, if Friedman or anyone else wants to throw some pie at me, the place to do it would be tomorrow at 6PM (that's the correct time, I messed up and mentioned 6:30PM earlier) at the Borders at 18th and L. Alternatively, you could just hear me talk about the book, answer questions, sign copies, whatever else you might like.

Comments

I agree this is the area that Friedman shines. This wasn't a bad article, I just know that Friedman can write better than this and am a little disappointed that this was his first op-ed after a 4 month sabbatical.

I mean this gas pandering should have been a home run, instead we only got the hitter on second base.

Posted by Ramza | April 30, 2008 2:29 PM

I would soooo pie you if I was in town.

Someone take Matt up on his offer.

I know he just wants to get on the local news, but he totally deserves it.

Posted by Boston Cream | April 30, 2008 2:30 PM

Any idea how long the book event tomorrow will last?

Posted by eriks | April 30, 2008 2:34 PM

What's your favorite flavor?

Posted by blah | April 30, 2008 2:37 PM

I call on Spencer Ackerman to make this happen.

Posted by southpaw | April 30, 2008 2:40 PM

Any update regarding an appearance in New York? Last I recall you said one was in the works.

Posted by Will | April 30, 2008 2:45 PM

Man, Matt just gave a hostage to fortune.

I double dog dare someone to throw a pie. Ezra or one of those guys in the Style Section photo should do it.

Posted by Peter K. | April 30, 2008 2:49 PM

Just hope Petey's not around....

May I channel him for a moment? Tom Friedman's a f**king a**h*le married-a-billion-heiress suck-on-this wannabe Rambo bullsh*t artist--and so he writes a frickin' obvious OBVIOUS column about fuel prices that any sentient person could have written on the subway to work.

And you wanna give him a brownie point? F**k that! Maybe, MAYBE after he writes like 20 YEARS of zestfully original, award-winning, save-the-world columns will he be out of the f**king doghouse. F**k him and the horse he rode in on!

One more thing--going green is the easiest play of the century--kind of as controversial as being against segregation. Don't be such an easy lay, Matt! F**k! ....that's enough. I'm done.

Posted by elle loco | April 30, 2008 2:50 PM

Will you mention, Matt, that some of the people who wrote blurbs or quotes on your book (how great it is, blah, blah) are your close friends? Will you be honest? By the way, would you give a GOP a pass if they would not do the same?

Posted by eorse | April 30, 2008 2:51 PM

No need to feel bad, Matt. Friedman has yet to atone for the mindless hype orbiting around his "flat earth" theory.

Posted by BCM | April 30, 2008 2:51 PM

Alternatively, you could just hear me talk about the book, answer questions, sign copies, whatever else you might like.

You left out "BUY the book." An uncharacteristic omission.

(Myself, I plan to check the book out of the library. Don't underestimate the value of all those library sales.)

Posted by Anderson | April 30, 2008 3:08 PM

Just read the article. It's okay. Friedman's argument meanders and is rather simplistic. I think we know the U.S. doesn't have an energy plan.

I did the math today on the savings I would recieve from a gas tax holiday this summer for filling up my 1999 Camry, about $35. This would allow me to buy another pack of gum, rice krispie treat and diet coke each time I fill the gas tank. A symbolic but utterly pointless move if you want to help cash-strapped households or reduce the price of gas.

The more disturbing point in all this is our elected leaders have no real suggestion about how to meet Americans growing demand for energy other than consuming more fossil fuels.

Posted by Ben | April 30, 2008 3:12 PM

Not being a celebrant of celebrities, the two bit ones or of the other kind, I have never gone to a book signing.

But if you come to San Diego, I will show up and buy your book.

Posted by gregor | April 30, 2008 3:13 PM

Matt, what are you in the mood for? Banana cream pie, lemon meringue?

I hope you can take a pie to the face a bit more gracefully than Friedman can.

Posted by Jeff | April 30, 2008 3:16 PM

Re: Thomas F:

blind squirrels, broken clocks, etc.,etc.

Posted by demisod | April 30, 2008 3:17 PM

Here's Clinton on the stump today:
"I am tired of OPEC setting the price and determining how much supply there is, by any definition that is a monopoly," Clinton said. "We are going to use every tool at our disposal as a nation to try to break that up."

Remember during the 2000 campaign, George Bush said he would "jawbone" the Saudis into lowing the price of oil. I think Clinton will be just as effective as Bush.

Posted by Another Mike | April 30, 2008 3:21 PM

"I am tired of OPEC setting the price and determining how much supply there is, by any definition that is a monopoly," Clinton said. "We are going to use every tool at our disposal as a nation to try to break that up."

LOL

(By the way, she needs to look up the definition of "monopoly")

Posted by blah | April 30, 2008 3:34 PM

You have a book out??

Posted by yabonn | April 30, 2008 3:45 PM

Only Friedman I like is Josh Friedman, the creator of the "Terminator" show.

Re: Clinton on breaking up OPEC: that was the neocon concept for the Iraq war - use Iraqi oil to screw OPEC.

The oil companies put the kibosh on that notion. See Greg Palast's series of article where he cites chapter and verse and names names as to who was involved:

http://www.gregpalast.com/bush-didnt-bungle-iraq-you-fools/
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/061406J.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031705A.shtml

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 30, 2008 5:01 PM

I work in academia - never met a professor who seriously studies aspects of globalization to think that Freidman digestion of it to be comprehensive in anyway. Riding around in a limo in China or India for a couple weeks and then writing a book about these places. Silly.

Posted by rob | April 30, 2008 5:02 PM

While you seem to be ensuring anyone in D.C. can get a signed copy of the book and discuss its merits, any chance you'll be making it outside of the Beltway and its suburbs at any point?

Seriously. Not sure there's a huge market for liberal-slanted books on politics out this way, but thought I'd ask if you'd be making it out to the KC area during the book tour.

Posted by Mark D | April 30, 2008 5:32 PM

Feeling bad for Tom F? Please ... He had his pie, baby, and he managed to eat it too. Tool. But I do love the black turtleneck look with super cool suede jacket he was sporting when he got nicked by a coconut cream and acted all outraged about it ...

Posted by charlotte | April 30, 2008 5:36 PM

Jeff,

I have been posting here under the name jeff, my real name, and there cant possibly be more than one of me. So may I suggest you take a hike!

As far as the book signing:

Petey where art thou?

Posted by jeff | April 30, 2008 6:39 PM

hey, anyone using the name Mike or Mark or Jeffrey- or any variation thereof

I was here first! so take a hike

Posted by Mike, Mark, Jeffrey, Bill, Bob | April 30, 2008 7:04 PM

Friedman isn't any smarter on energy than he is on his other simplistic pabulum; the only difference is that Matt agrees with him on the subject. They're both wrong. Keeping two thirds of U.S. energy reserves off-limits to exploration and extraction -- which has been the de facto energy policy of Congressional Democrats for at least ten years -- is asinine.

Ten years ago Chuck Schumer was nasally intoning that we shouldn't drill in ANWR because we wouldn't see significant oil production from it for ten years. Guess what? It's been ten years. Would ANWR be a panacea? No. Would tapping it and other untapped domestic sources of energy be part of the solution? Yes. Would we today have lower gas prices, a lower trade deficit, more high-paying blue collar jobs, and more royalty payments to the government, and be less-dependent on foreign oil suppliers such as Canada if we hadn't kept these resources off-limits back then? Absolutely.

Every Democratic objection to making use of our domestic energy resources is based on a false assumption: that the choice is between using more of our domestic fossil fuel resources and pursuing the Dems' flying unicorn vision of a feasible energy source that meets all lefty objections (NIMBY, non-nuclear, non-polluting, non-carbon emitting, etc.). In reality, keeping domestic sources of oil off-limits doesn't mean we'll use less oil; it just means that we'll use an even higher percentage of foreign oil.

Posted by Fred | April 30, 2008 9:14 PM

"...whatever else you might like."

How about you and Friedman oiled up and engaged in a Texas Tag-Team Death Match in a vat of pasta with Moqtada al Sadr and David Petraeus, Matt?

Posted by Robert Powell | May 1, 2008 4:58 AM

I have been posting here under the name jeff, my real name, and there cant possibly be more than one of me. So may I suggest you take a hike!

What are we, neocons here? How about a little diplomacy? Why can't you be the lowercase 'jeff' and I'll be the uppercase 'Jeff'? There's room enough for two J-E-F-F's on this blog, man.

Posted by Jeff | May 1, 2008 11:41 AM