Thomas Friedman, "More Chopsticks, Please": At Least Borat Spoke English

Surely you recall Sacha Baron Cohen's 2006 comedy "Borat," in which Borat Sagdiyev, a fictitious Kazakh journalist, traveled around the US at the behest of the Kazakh Ministry of Information in order to create a documentary film of his experiences. At least Borat spoke English.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "More Chopsticks, Please" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/11/opinion/sunday/friedman-more-chopsticks-please.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Thomas Friedman tells us how his newspaper sent him to Kiev and Hanoi over the past couple of weeks in order to recount his experiences. Does Friedman speak fluent Ukrainian and/or Vietnamese? Probably not. And this could well have contributed to Tom's hilarious observation:

"And in my jet-lagged torpor, all I’ve been trying to do is make sure I don’t order Chicken Kiev in Hanoi and Chicken Spring Rolls in Kiev."

Hahahahaha.

Observing that the Ukraine is being bullied by Russia and that Vietnam is being bullied by China, Friedman concludes:

"We’re not going to go to war on either front. And Russia and China also have claims and interests that bear consideration. But if we are to persuade Moscow and Beijing to resolve these border disputes peacefully, not unilaterally, we’ll clearly need a few more chopsticks in our bundle. Which is why America’s ability to build coalitions is as vital today as the exercise of its own power."

America's ability to build coalitions is vital today? Well, good luck to the Obama administration in forging a coalition to oppose Russia, after America's president alienated both Poland and the Czech Republic by scrapping plans for a missile defense system in both these countries. Instead, Obama promised "flexibility" to Putin.

And good luck to the Obama administration in forging a coalition to oppose China, after America's president refused to take sides in the dispute between China and Japan involving sovereignty over the the Senkaku Islands.

Needless to say, Friedman fails to mention that China is the largest single holder of American debt and is owed some $1.3 trillion by the US government.

But never mind this sobering truth. Just keep bundling those chopsticks.

Hahahahaha.

Yup, almost as funny as the greenhouse gas emissions spewed by the airplanes carrying Friedman around the globe, all in order to allow Tom to spew these gaseous rollicking opinion pieces.

David Brooks, "The Humanist Vocation": In Search of a Lost Soul

I just arrived back from Afghanistan with my MRAP (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/meet-our-next-car-mrap.html), and yes, I'm tired. The flights were delayed, there were so many MRAPs to choose from, but it was well worth the effort. I've already noticed that I'm not getting much in the way of miles per gallon, and its 0-60 acceleration is slow, but you should see how people stare as I drive by them! Who cares if I cause traffic jams by occupying two lanes? How did Borat describe such a vehicle?:

Borat: A man yesterday, tell me if I buy a car I must buy one with a pussy magnet.
Car Dealership owner: He means a car that women like.
Borat: Yes, but where do you keep this magnet?
Car Dealership owner: No. There's no magnet he just means the vehicle. Women love the Hummers.
Borat: Do this have a pussy magnet?
Car Dealership owner: No. The vehicle itself would be a magnet.
Borat: If I give you good price, will you please put in pussy magnet?

Which brings me to David Brooks's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Humanist Vocation" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/opinion/brooks-the-humanist-vocation.html?_r=0) (I know, that wasn't much of a segue). You will recall that in response to Brooks's prior op-ed, "Beyond the Brain" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/david-brooks-beyond-brain-brain-is-not.html), I wrote:

"Yes, as terror, cruelty, greed and poverty swirl around us, we should continue to marvel at the sublime human mind.

And if we have a mind, do we have a soul? Truly, a soul-searching issue . . ."

Well, whether or not he reads my blog, he certainly picked up my gauntlet, and today, decrying the demise of the teaching of humanities, Brooks writes:

"A half-century ago, 14 percent of college degrees were awarded to people who majored in the humanities. Today, only 7 percent of graduates in the country are humanities majors. Even over the last decade alone, the number of incoming students at Harvard who express interest in becoming humanities majors has dropped by a third.

Most people give an economic explanation for this decline. Accounting majors get jobs. Lit majors don’t. And there’s obviously some truth to this. But the humanities are not only being bulldozed by an unforgiving job market. They are committing suicide because many humanists have lost faith in their own enterprise."

Humanists have lost faith in their own enterprise? Philosophers don't get jobs? How can this possibly be, given the election of Barack Obama and the advent of "Hope" and "Change," which have morphed into "Forward," which is, by the way, why I just bought an MRAP. "Forward" in an MRAP is fine, but reverse can be a nightmare.

But I stray from the matter at hand. Brooks continues his opinion piece by declaring:

"Back when the humanities were thriving, the leading figures had a clear definition of their mission and a fervent passion for it. The job of the humanities was to cultivate the human core, the part of a person we might call the spirit, the soul, or, in D.H. Lawrence’s phrase, 'the dark vast forest.'"

Ah yes . . . the "soul"! I told you, I knew it was coming. "On the Soul" by Aristotle? I wouldn't do that to you. Rather, I will confine myself to the elucidating declaration by Andre the Giant in the 1987 gem "The Princess Bride":

Fezzik: The Dread Pirate Roberts is here for your souls!

In fact, I had much time to contemplate my soul earlier this morning while driving down the highway in my new MRAP with the roof down. You see, I studied philosophy at the University of Chicago, and later learned law, and was forced to reeducate myself twice.

Reeducate myself? Okay, no one is willing to pay you today for introducing Immanuel Kant into negotiations (either you can, or you can't), but law? There's no market for law? To make matters short, I would refer you to the 1992 comedy "My Cousin Vinny":

Mona Lisa Vito: Don't you wanna know why Trotter gave you his files?
Vinny Gambini: I told you why already.
Mona Lisa Vito: He has to, by law, you're entitled. It's called disclosure, you dickhead! He has to show you everything, otherwise it could be a mistrial. He has to give you a list of all his witnesses, you can talk to all his witnesses, he's not allowed any surprises.
[Vinny has a blank look on his face]
Mona Lisa Vito: They didn't teach you that in law school either?

In fact, I vaguely recall them teaching me "legal ethics" at law school. It's the equivalent of "giant shrimp."

Yet again I stray from the human soul and its ineluctable corollaries, honesty and morality. Allow me to quote from a masterful opinion piece by George Will entitled "Obama hits a wall in Berlin" in today's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-obama-hits-a-wall-in-berlin/2013/06/20/bfff0426-d9df-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html?hpid=z2), concerning Obama's speech on Wednesday at the Brandenburg Gate:

"Shifting his strange focus from Russia’s nuclear weapons, Obama said “we can . . . reject the nuclear weaponization that North Korea and Iran may be seeking.” Were Obama given to saying such stuff off the cuff, this would be a good reason for handcuffing him to a teleprompter. But, amazingly, such stuff is put on his teleprompter and, even more amazing, he reads it aloud.

Neither the people who wrote those words nor he who spoke them can be taken seriously. North Korea and Iran may be seeking nuclear weapons? North Korea may have such weapons. Evidently Obama still entertains doubts that Iran is seeking them.

In Northern Ireland before going to Berlin, Obama sat next to Putin, whose demeanor and body language when he is in Obama’s presence radiate disdain. There Obama said: 'With respect to Syria, we do have differing perspectives on the problem, but we share an interest in reducing the violence.' Differing perspectives?

Obama wants to reduce the violence by coaxing Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, who is winning the war, to attend a conference at which he negotiates the surrender of his power. Putin wants to reduce the violence by helping — with lavish materiel assistance and by preventing diplomacy that interferes — Assad complete the destruction of his enemies."

Hiding from scandals at home, Obama is also evading international truth.

A human soul? I don't know, however, I sure as heck believe in human evil, which needs to be confronted. Obama is doing his best to avoid the issue.

Nicholas Kristof, "Hugs From Iran": Much Like Borat

Having received a very rare visa from Tehran (it doesn't surprise me that he, of all American journalists, was bestowed this benefaction) and armed with a notebook, Nicholas Kristof, much like Borat, has set off on a 1,700-mile road trip across Iran. The difference is that Borat, traveling across the US, spoke English; the peripathetic Kristof, on the other hand, does not speak Farsi, but why should this spoil the fun?

In his latest New York Times op-ed, "Hugs From Iran" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/opinion/kristof-hugs-from-iran.html), Kristof describes the manner in which Iranians he interviewed changed their opinions the moment he pulled out his notebook and video camera, but observes the ubiquitous "warmth of Iranians when they discovered I was American," leading to the erudite conclusion "that at the grass-roots level, this may be the most pro-American nation in the Middle East." Kristof concludes:

"To me, Iran feels like other authoritarian countries I covered before they toppled. My guess is that the demise of the system is a matter of time — unless there’s a war between Iran and the West, perhaps ignited by Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. That, I sense, would provoke a nationalist backlash and rescue the ayatollahs. More on what I found on my journey in forthcoming columns."

Ah yes, sweet music to the ayatollahs ears, who had a reason for issuing Kristof that visa. God forbid that Israel should strike Iranian nuclear weapons development sites, thereby provoking nationalist backlash and rescuing the ayatollahs, even if this might serve to rescue Israel from threatened annihilation at the hands of the ayatollahs.

To his credit, Kristof did ask one of the common folk whom he encountered "about human rights activists and members of the Bahai faith who are in prison." The man's response:

"'I don’t think that in our country innocent people go to jail,' he said. 'They must have done something.'"

How enlightening. Well worth the 1,700-mile expedition. You're the man, Nicholas! Keep up the good work!

[Kristof, also like Borat, is very much into hugging. Recall his "remarkable" 2011 opinion piece entitled "Hugs From Libyans" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2011/03/nicholas-kristofs-hugs-from-libyans-new.html), written before the al-Qaeda flag was raised over Benghazi. A hearty cyberspace hug from me to you, Nicholas.]

The New York Times, Roger Cohen and "Borat"

The New York Times, Roger Cohen and "Borat"? Wherein lies the nexus? Roger Cohen/Sacha Cohen? No, think again, but meantime let's have a look at yesterday's box score.

On Saturday, I went two for two, as they say in baseball: two online comments submitted in response to New York Times op-eds, two online comments censored. Nothing remarkable about that, unless I have so irritated The Times that they have decided not to post any more of my comments. Needless to say, I sent a protest via e-mail to Clark Hoyt, Public Editor of The Times:

Dear Clark,

You claim . . . that my comments have not been posted because they were "off the topic".

I have just been censored again. My censored comment to Cohen's op-ed, "Iran's Second Sex", of today's date, quotes Cohen three times:

In "Iran's Second Sex", Roger Cohen writes: "The mullahs of Qom have lots of training in how to say the opposite of what they said before." Apparently, Qom's mullahs are not the only ones with this skill: Cohen has seamlessly moved from regime empathizer to regime detractor.

Roger now tells us that Neda "personifies a certain Iran that I've tried to evoke since the beginning of this year." Oh, really. I remember a protracted media campaign , relentlessly informing us that Iran is "not totalitarian".

Roger also tells us in this op-ed that Iran is "a real country with real people rather than a bunch of zealous clerics posing a nuclear problem." I've got news for you, Roger, North Korea is also a real country with real people, but this does not diminish the dire nuclear problem posed by its totalitarian dictator.

Yes, Iranian women are oppressed, and this should have been noted by you long ago.

Likewise the time has come for you to make amends and forthrightly describe the horrifying persecution of Iran's Baha'is, a matter to which you have devoted no more than a single sentence in the past six months.

Also, you need to revisit Iran's tiny, frightened Jewish community. It is now time to report what Iran's Jews, who fled Iran and are no longer afraid to tell the truth, have to say.

If you wish to claim that my comment of today's date was not on-topic, please justify the posting of comment no. 35, which states in its entirety:

One wonders what this country would look like the fundamentalist religious conservative wing of the Republican Party took power.

Kindly explain to me how the rejection of my comment does not amount to vulgar, politicized censorship by The Times of dissenting opinion. You claim that The Times is a proponent of "robust debate", yet here is your answer, real time.

If "censorship" and "anti-Semitism" are of interest to you and you wish to discuss these matters, my telephone number appears below.

Clark Hoyt, notwithstanding his sincerity (see his e-mail to me in my prior post), did not call me. So let's get back to "Borat".

In "Borat", a reporter from Kazakhstan, who speaks broken English and is unfamiliar with American culture, is sent across the U.S. to recount his experiences. Absurd as the plot of "Borat" might seem, is it any less absurd than what The Times did: sending Roger Cohen, who does not speak Farsi and has no degrees in Middle Eastern studies, on two whirlwind tours of Persia? The results speak for themselves:

• In "The Other Iran" (February 1), Cohen declares that the "Islamic Revolution has proved resilient in part through flexibility", and "axis-of-evil myopia has led U.S. policy makers to underestimate the social, psychological and political forces for pragmatism, compromise and stability" in Iran.
• In "Reading Khamenei in Tehran" (February 18), Cohen insists that "Khamenei sees his primary task as safeguarding a revolution whose core values include . . . social justice."
• In "What Iran's Jews Say" (February 22), we are told that the "reality of Iranian civility toward Jews tells us more about Iran - its sophistication and culture - than all the inflammatory rhetoric." Cohen fails to inform us that he was speaking with Iranian Jews via an interpreter who was reporting back to the Iranian government. He also fails to inform us of what he later acknowledged at Sinai Temple: the Jews with whom he spoke were exercising self-censorship.
• In "From Tehran to Tel Aviv" (March 22), Cohen tells us that the Iranian "regime's provocative rhetoric masks essential pragmatism" and "the mullahs are anything but mad". Cohen goes on to claim that Supreme Leader Khamenei quieted a crowd chanting "Death to America!", but Cohen, who does not speak Farsi, could not possibly understand the subtleties of Khamenei's speech.
• In "Israel Cries Wolf" (April 8), Cohen concludes: "What's critical right now is that Obama view Netanyahu's fear-mongering with an appropriate skepticism, rein him in, and pursue his regime-recognizing opening toward Tehran".
• In "Iran Awakens Yet Again" (June 10), Cohen enthuses: "For months now, I've been urging another look at Iran, beyond dangerous demonization of it as a totalitarian state. Seldom has the country looked less like one than in these giddy June days." Cohen describes Iran's democracy as "incomplete but vigorous".
• In "Iran's Day of Anguish" (June 14), Cohen acknowledges "I erred in underestimating the brutality and cynicism of a regime that understands the uses of ruthlessness."
• In "My Name Is Iran" (June 18), Cohen attributes great symbolic significance to the response "My name is Iran", when he asks the name of a young female protester. Apparently unbeknownst to Cohen, "Iran" is a common woman's name in Iran (there is a book by Ms. Iran Davar Ardalan, entitled "My Name Is Iran"). Cohen labels Moussavi "the reformist of impeccable revolutionary credentials". No mention that as prime minister, Moussavi presided over the execution of thousands of dissidents. No mention that Moussavi defended the taking of hostages at the U.S. embassy in Tehran and backed the fatwa against British author Salman Rushdie.
• In "Children of Tomorrow" (June 22), Cohen describes his meeting with the son of Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, whom Cohen calls "the establishment's embittered eminence grise". Cohen fails to note that Rafsanjani, a leading backer of the "reformist" Moussavi, is charged by Argentine prosecutors with masterminding the 1994 suicide bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, which resulted in the murder of 85 people and the serious wounding of 151.
• In "Iran's Second Sex" (June 26) Cohen acknowledges that Iranian women's "subjugation became a pillar of the Islamic state," despite his original premise that the Islamic revolution's "core values" include "social justice". Cohen complains that Qom's mullahs "have lots of training in how to say the opposite of what they said before."

Notwithstanding all of the above, The Times is now holding Cohen out as an "expert" on Iran. In his column "On the Ground", fellow New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof complimented Cohen on his "superb columns" and invited The Times' readers to submit their questions to Cohen.

Thanks, but I think Cohen lost his credibility long ago. Submit a question to Cohen or watch "Borat" for the umpteenth time? You know what I'm going to choose.