Then, a month into the Afghanistan conflict, Friedman complained that the hand-wringing has already begun over how long this might last and advised readers to take a deep breath,
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9800E3D81130F931A35752C1A9679C8B63> noting that Afghanistan is far away. Besides, Friedman had no doubt, for now, that the Bush team has a military strategy for winning a long war. A month later, he noted in passing that America has won the war in Afghanistan
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E2D8133BF930A15752C0A9649C8B63> and that the Taliban are gone, though he did express some concern about all the nonsense written in the press about the concern for 'civilian casualties',
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F06EFDF153AF930A15752C1A9679C8B63> a term he took to using with scare quotes. Seven years later, civilian casualties remain a major item of concern for Afghanis in the non-won war against the non-gone Taliban.
In 2005, Friedman explained that it was necessary for Democrats to start thinking seriously about Iraq lest the party become unimportant.
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D02EED8163AF933A25751C0A9639C8B63> Though Democrats never got around to agreeing with Friedman on what seriousness entails, they did manage to take control of both chambers of Congress the following year, ushering in a period of nearly unprecedented political dominance that continues to this day, which strikes me as a pretty important thing to do.
Now, bearing all of this in mind, wouldn't it be swell if we as a society could come together and finally proclaim, in unison and beautiful harmony, that Thomas Friedman has no idea what he's talking about? And then maybe we could key his car or some such. This is a time for bold moves.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Hogan, Michael <
Michael_Hogan@condenast.com> wrote:
Great!
-----------------
Michael Hogan
Executive Online Editor
Vanity Fair
http://www.vanityfair.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Barrett Brown [
mailto:barriticus@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 04:32 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: Hogan, Michael
Subject: Re: Re: Query from Barrett Brown
Absolutely; it would be an honor to open for Henry Rollins.
Thanks,
Barrett Brown
Brooklyn, NY
512-560-2302
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Hogan, Michael <
Michael_Hogan@condenast.com
> wrote:
> The Politics & Power blog. Work for you?
>
> -----------------
> Michael Hogan
> Executive Online Editor
> Vanity Fair
>
http://www.vanityfair.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barrett Brown [
mailto:barriticus@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 09:24 PM Eastern Standard Time
> To: Hogan, Michael
> Subject: Re: Query from Barrett Brown
>
> Okay, I'll have it in to you soon. Under what section will the story be
> located on the site?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Barrett Brown
> Brooklyn, NY
> 512-560-2302
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Hogan, Michael <
>
Michael_Hogan@condenast.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Not a bad idea. Let's do it that way. Thanks.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Barrett Brown [
mailto:barriticus@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wed 2/18/2009 7:36 PM
> > To: Hogan, Michael
> > Subject: Re: Query from Barrett Brown
> >
> > Mike-
> >
> > Sounds good, although if it's only to be 500 words, perhaps it would be
> > better for me to just cover five of his predictions instead of ten so
> that
> > there's enough room for context. Let me know what you think.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Barrett Brown
> > Brooklyn, NY
> > 512-560-2302
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Michael Hogan
> > <
Michael_Hogan@condenast.com>wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Barrett,
> > >
> > > Sorry for the delay. Can we say 500 words at $250? Due 3/1?
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/13/09 7:34 PM, "Barrett Brown" <
barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay; do you need anything else from me at this point or should I wait
> > for
> > > you to get back to me first?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Barrett Brown
> > > Brooklyn, NY
> > > 512-560-2302
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Hogan, Michael <
> > >
Michael_Hogan@condenast.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > That's good! Let's finalize tomorrow.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Barrett Brown [
mailto:barriticus@gmail.com]<barriticus@gmail.com
> > %5D>
> > > Sent: Thu 2/12/2009 5:21 PM
> > > To: Hogan, Michael
> > > Subject: Re: Query from Barrett Brown
> > >
> > > Perhaps, for instance, Thomas Friedman's Ten Worst Predictions of the
> > 21st
> > > Century?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Barrett Brown
> > > Brooklyn, NY
> > > 512-560-2302
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Barrett Brown <
barriticus@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Mike-
> > > >
> > > > Okay, sounds good. But could it be ten of his bad predictions in
> > general,
> > > > and not just of 2003? Several of the most significantly foolish
> > > predictions
> > > > are from other years, particularly 2001 and 2002. Let me know what
> you
> > > > think.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Barrett Brown
> > > > Brooklyn, NY
> > > > 512-560-2302
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Michael Hogan <
> > > >
Michael_Hogan@condenast.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Barrett,
> > > >>
> > > >> What about a shortish piece titled something like Thomas Friedman's
> > Ten
> > > >> Worst Predictions from 2003?
> > > >>
> > > >> Best,
> > > >> Mike
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On 2/11/09 12:04 PM, "Barrett Brown" <
barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Mike-
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks for getting back to me. Off the bat, would you be interested
> in
> > > >> taking a look at a piece I'm about write on Thomas Friedman and how
> > he's
> > > >> emblematic of the failures of American punditry in general? The bulk
> > of
> > > the
> > > >> article would be a critique of his 2003 book *Longitudes and
> > Attitudes*,
> > > >> which is itself drawn from his NYT columns from 2000 to 2002, and
> > which
> > > is
> > > >> filled with a great number of failed predictions, weird
> > contradictions,
> > > and
> > > >> vapid observations in general. For instance, he asserts in 2001 that
> > > Putin
> > > >> will be a great reformer for whom Americans should be "rootin',"
> > claims
> > > in
> > > >> 2002 that the "bubble" of ethical lapses among corporate
> > administrators
> > > has
> > > >> recently burst, claims in the same column that the terrorism
> "bubble"
> > > has
> > > >> burst as well, claims in 2003 that the very threat of a U.S. attack
> on
> > > Iraq
> > > >> " has already prompted Hezbollah to be on its best behavior in
> > Lebanon
> > > (for
> > > >> fear of being next)," predicts in 2001 that many households will
> have
> > > dozens
> > > >> of web addresses for such things as refrigerators by 2005, and
> claims
> > > >> several times in 2001 and 2002 that the war in Afghanistan is over,
> > that
> > > >> Afghanis do not really object to civilian casualties as long as the
> > > Taliban
> > > >> is overthrown, and that worries to the contrary constitute
> > > "hand-wringing"
> > > >> (and in the same column, he worries that the Bush Administration is
> > not
> > > >> sufficiently concerned with public relations and asserts that "I
> have
> > no
> > > >> doubt, for now, that the Bush team has a military strategy for
> winning
> > a
> > > >> long war." In his more recent columns, of course, he criticizes
> those
> > > who
> > > >> held the exact opinions that he himself held.
> > > >>
> > > >> Let me know if this interests you, and if so I'll send it along to
> you
> > > >> first. The piece would be moderately humorous along the lines of the
> > > clip I
> > > >> sent you the other day.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks again,
> > > >>
> > > >> Barrett Brown
> > > >> Brooklyn, NY
> > > >> 512-560-2302
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Michael Hogan <
> > > >>
Michael_Hogan@condenast.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Barrett,
> > > >>
> > > >> Nice to hear from you and thanks for sending the clip. By all means,
> > > pitch
> > > >> away. We occasionally do get to assign stories on a freelance basis.
> > > >>
> > > >> Best,
> > > >> Mike
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On 2/9/09 12:43 PM, "Barrett Brown" <
barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi, Mike-
> > > >>
> > > >> I understand that you're currently the online editor of *Vanity
> Fair*,
> > > >> and I wanted to get in touch to see if you'd be interesting in
> > receiving
> > > >> some queries from me or perhaps have something you'd like to assign.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm a Brooklyn-based freelance writer and author, and my work has
> > > appeared
> > > >> in *National Lampoon*, *Skeptic*, *McSweeney's*, *The Onion A.V.
> > Club*,
> > > *
> > > >> Nerve*, and dozens of other publications, including trade, literary,
> > > >> regional, and policy journals. My first book, *Flock of Dodos:
> Behind
> > > >> Modern Creationism, Intelligent Design, and the Easter Bunny*, was
> > > >> released in 2007 to praise from Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law
> School,
> > > Matt
> > > >> Taibbi of *Rolling Stone*, Cenk Uyger of *Air America Radio, *Bob
> > Cesca
> > > >> of *The Huffington Post*, and other sources. I've also served as a
> > > >> copywriter for outlets like America Online.
> > > >>
> > > >> I've pasted a recent sample below; it's an article that will be
> > > appearing
> > > >> in the next issue of *Skeptic*.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Barrett Brown
> > > >>
> > > >> Brooklyn, NY
> > > >>
> > > >> 512-560-2302
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> *Adventures in Math and Marriage
> > > >> *
> > > >> *by Barrett Brown
> > > >> *
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Does the legalization of gay marriage really contribute to the
> decline
> > > of
> > > >> heterosexual marriage? A good portion of our fair republic's
> cultural
> > > >> conservatives seem to believe that it does, which is to say that it
> > > probably
> > > >> doesn't. But perhaps we should check anyway.
> > > >>
> > > >> "[I]n the Netherlands and places where they have tried to define
> > > marriage
> > > >> [to include gay couples], what happens is that people just don't get
> > > >> married," evangelical kingpin James Dobson told a typically
> credulous
> > > Larry
> > > >> King in November of 2006. "It's not that the homosexuals are
> marrying
> > in
> > > >> greater numbers," he continued, although obviously homosexuals are
> > > indeed
> > > >> marrying in greater numbers since that number used to be zero and is
> > now
> > > >> something greater than zero, "it's that when you confuse what
> marriage
> > > is,
> > > >> young people just don't get married."
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> If what James Dobson says is true, New Jersey is going to be in huge
> > > >> trouble, and Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2004,
> must
> > > >> already be. Of course, James Dobson is wrong. But whereas James
> Dobson
> > > >> generally contents himself with simply being wrong in his
> priorities,
> > > >> sensibilities, instincts, historical perspective, theology, and
> > manners
> > > -
> > > >> which is to say, wrong in a mystical, cloudy sort of way - he has
> here
> > > >> managed to be wrong in such a blatant sense that his wrongness can
> be
> > > >> demonstrated with mathematical exactitude. In fact, we should go
> ahead
> > > and
> > > >> do that. It'll be like an adventure - a math adventure.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> First, let's prepare our variables. *X *is any country "where they
> > have
> > > >> tried to define marriage [to include gay couples]," as Dobson
> manages
> > to
> > > >> term these nations with just a little clarification from us. *Y *is
> > the
> > > >> all-important marriage rate among heterosexuals before country *X*
> has
> > > >> "tried to define marriage [to include gay couples]," and *Z *is the
> > > >> all-important and allegedly damning heterosexual marriage rate that
> > > exists
> > > >> after ten years of gay civil unions. Now, the Dobson Theorem, as we
> > > shall
> > > >> call it, plainly states that "if *X, *then *Y *must be greater than
> > > *Z.*" Or,
> > > >> to re-translate it into English, "if a nation allows for civil
> unions,
> > > the
> > > >> marriage rate among heterosexuals at the time that this occurs will
> be
> > > >> higher than it is ten years later," because the marriage rate among
> > > >> heterosexuals will of course decline for some reason.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Let us now test this Grand Unified Dobson Theorem, as I re-named it
> > just
> > > a
> > > >> second ago when you weren't looking. Now, like most things with
> > > variables,
> > > >> the Grand Unified Christological Dobson Super-Theorem of Niftiness
> > > (which
> > > >> needed more pizazz) requires that *X *be substituted for various
> > things
> > > >> that meet the parameters of *X -* in this case, northern European
> > > >> countries. Luckily, Dr. Dobson himself has provided us with some.
> > During
> > > the
> > > >> Larry King interview, Dobson mentioned Norway and "other
> Scandinavian
> > > >> countries" as fitting the description. We'll also need values to
> punch
> > > in
> > > >> for *Y *and *Z.* These may be obtained from all of the countries in
> > > >> question, which have famously nosy, busy-body governments.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Conveniently enough, these numbers may also be obtained from the
> > October
> > > >> 26th edition of the *Wall Street Journal *op-ed page. It seems that
> > > >> William N. Eskridge, Jr., the John A. Garver professor of
> > jurisprudence
> > > at
> > > >> Yale University, and Darren Spedale, a New York investment banker,
> had
> > > >> recently written a book called *Gay Marriage: For Better or For
> Worse?
> > > >> What We've Learned From the Evidence*, and had chosen to present the
> > > >> thrust of their findings in op-ed form.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Denmark, the authors noted, began allowing for gay civil unions in
> > 1989.
> > > >> Ten years later, the heterosexual marriage rate had increased by
> 10.7
> > > >> percent. Norway did the same in 1993. Ten years later, the
> > heterosexual
> > > >> marriage rate had increased by 12.7 percent. Sweden followed suite
> in
> > > 1995.
> > > >> Ten years later, the heterosexual marriage rate had increased by
> 28.7
> > > >> percent. And these marriages were actually lasting. During the same
> > time
> > > >> frame, the divorce rate dropped 13.9 percent in Denmark, 6 percent
> in
> > > >> Norway, and 13.7 percent in Sweden.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> As the Reader will no doubt have determined at this point, the
> Dobson
> > > >> Theorem or whatever it is that we've decided to call it is obviously
> > > bunk,
> > > >> since it stated that countries which allow gay civil unions will see
> a
> > > >> decline in the marriage rate among homosexuals, when in fact the
> > > opposite is
> > > >> true. But since we've already gone to the trouble of expressing
> > Dobson's
> > > >> goofy utterances in the form of a theorem (or rather, since *I've*
> > gone
> > > >> to the trouble - you were no help at all), we might as well punch in
> > > these
> > > >> figures just to make absolutely sure:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> *if X, then Y will be greater than Z
> > > >> *
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> We punch in Denmark for *X, *Denmark's marriage rate in 1989 (*n*)
> for
> > > *Y
> > > >> *, and Denmark's marriage rate in 1999 (n + n(10.7)) for *Z*:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> *If Denmark, then n will be greater than n + n(10.7)
> > > >> *
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Well, that's obviously wrong, since *n *is not a greater number than
> > *n
> > > *plus
> > > >> any other positive number*.* It is, in fact, a smaller number. If
> > > >> Denmark's policies reduce marriage, the residents of Denmark have
> yet
> > to
> > > >> realize this and act accordingly.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Where is Dobson getting his information from this time? The culprit
> in
> > > >> this case may be *Weekly Standard *and *National Review *gadfly
> > Stanley
> > > >> Kurtz, who took issue with Garver and Eskridge's preliminary
> findings
> > > back
> > > >> in 2004, before they were published (in fact, Kurtz weirdly
> dismisses
> > > them
> > > >> as "unpublished" not once but twice in the course of his article;
> now
> > > that
> > > >> they have appeared more formally, Kurtz will no doubt praise them as
> > > >> "published"). Confronted with statistics indicating that marriage in
> > > >> Scandinavia is in fine shape, Kurtz instead proclaimed that
> > > "Scandinavian
> > > >> marriage is now so weak that statistics on marriage and divorce no
> > > longer
> > > >> mean what they used to."
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Brushing aside numbers showing that Danish marriage was up ten
> percent
> > > >> from 1990 to 1996, Kurtz countered that "just-released marriage
> rates
> > > for
> > > >> 2001 show declines in Sweden and Denmark." He failed to note that
> they
> > > were
> > > >> down in 2001 for quite a few places, including the United States,
> > which
> > > of
> > > >> course had no civil unions anywhere in 2001. And having not yet had
> > > access
> > > >> to the figures, he couldn't have known that both American and
> > > Scandinavian
> > > >> rates went back up in 2002. As for Norway, he says, the higher
> > marriage
> > > rate
> > > >> "has more to do with the institution's decline than with any
> > > renaissance.
> > > >> Much of the increase in Norway's marriage rate is driven by older
> > > couples
> > > >> 'catching up.'" It's unclear exactly how old these "older couples"
> may
> > > be,
> > > >> but at any rate, Kurtz thinks their marriages simply don't count,
> and
> > in
> > > >> fact constitute a sign of "the institution's decline." So Kurtz's
> > > >> position is that Norwegian marriage is in decline because not only
> are
> > > >> younger people getting married at a higher rate, but older people
> are
> > as
> > > >> well. I don't know what Kurtz's salary is, but I'm sure it would
> piss
> > me
> > > off
> > > >> to find out.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Kurtz also wanted us to take divorce. "Take divorce," Kurtz wrote.
> > "It's
> > > >> true that in Denmark, as elsewhere in Scandinavia, divorce numbers
> > > looked
> > > >> better in the nineties. But that's because the pool of married
> people
> > > has
> > > >> been shrinking for some time. You can't divorce without first
> getting
> > > >> married." This is true. It's also true that Denmark has a much lower
> > > divorce
> > > >> rate than the United States as a percentage of married couples, a
> > method
> > > of
> > > >> calculation that makes the size of the married people pool
> irrelevant.
> > > >> Denmark's percentage is 44.5, while the United States is at 54.8.
> > > >> Incidentally, those numbers come from the Heritage Foundation, which
> > > also
> > > >> sponsors reports on the danger that gay marriage poses to the
> > > heterosexual
> > > >> marriage rate.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Still, Kurtz is upset that many Scandinavian children are born out
> of
> > > >> wedlock. "About 60 percent of first-born children in Denmark now
> have
> > > >> unmarried parents," he says. He doesn't give us the percentage of
> > > >> second-born children who have unmarried parents, because that
> > percentage
> > > is
> > > >> lower and would thus indicate that Scandinavian parents often marry
> > > after
> > > >> having their first child, as Kurtz himself later notes in the course
> > of
> > > >> predicting that this will no longer be the case as gay civil unions
> > > continue
> > > >> to take their non-existent toll on Scandinavian marriage.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Since the rate by which Scandinavian couples have children before
> > > getting
> > > >> married has been rising for decades, it's hard to see what this has
> to
> > > do
> > > >> with gay marriage - unless, of course, you happen to be Stanley
> Kurtz.
> > > >> "Scandinavia's out-of-wedlock birthrates may have risen more rapidly
> > in
> > > the
> > > >> seventies, when marriage began its slide. But the push of that rate
> > past
> > > the
> > > >> 50 percent mark during the nineties was in many ways more
> disturbing."
> > > Of
> > > >> course it was more disturbing to Kurtz. By the mid-'90s, the
> > > Scandinavians
> > > >> had all instituted civil unions, and thus even the clear,
> > > long-established
> > > >> trajectory of such a trend as premature baby-bearing can be laid at
> > the
> > > feet
> > > >> of the homos simply by establishing some arbitrary numerical
> benchmark
> > > that
> > > >> was obviously going to be reached anyway, calling this milestone "in
> > > many
> > > >> ways more disturbing," and hinting that all of this is somehow the
> > fault
> > > of
> > > >> the gays. By the same token, I can prove that the establishment of
> the
> > > *Weekly
> > > >> Standard* in 1995 has contributed to rampant world population
> growth.
> > > >> Sure, that population growth has been increasing steadily for
> decades,
> > > but
> > > >> the push of that number past the 6 billion mark in 2000 was "in many
> > > ways
> > > >> more disturbing" to me for some weird reason that I can't quite pin
> > > down. Of
> > > >> course, this is faulty reasoning - by virtue of its unparalleled
> > support
> > > for
> > > >> the invasion of Iraq, the *Weekly Standard* has actually done its
> part
> > > to
> > > >> keep world population down.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Why is Kurtz so disturbed about out-of-wedlock rates? Personally, I
> > > think
> > > >> it would be preferable for a couple to have a child and then get
> > > married, as
> > > >> is more often the case in Scandinavia, rather than for a couple to
> > have
> > > a
> > > >> child and then get divorced, as is more often the case in the United
> > > States.
> > > >> Kurtz doesn't seem to feel this way, though, as it isn't convenient
> to
> > > feel
> > > >> this way at this particular time. Here are all of these couples, he
> > > tells
> > > >> us, having babies without first filling out the proper baby-making
> > > paperwork
> > > >> with the proper federal agencies. What will become of the babies?
> > > Perhaps
> > > >> they'll all die. Or perhaps they'll continue to outperform their
> > > American
> > > >> counterparts in math and science, as they've been doing for quite a
> > > while.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>