That and allow more Muslims in the country. The don't borrow money from western banks because it is forbidden to pay interest. They also don't put their money into savings accounts (because it is forbidden to earn interest) so they will probably be out spending more of what they earn instead of paying off credit card debt (which they don't carry balances on because of the interest)...
heh. i bet friedman will think about this while having tea in cairo, or some other stupid parable that he uses to start his columns/books.
Friedman always strikes me as someone who writes his columns for the sole purpose of justifying to his employer (the NYT) why he travels so much. He is always sipping tea in a busy cafe in Cairo or Istanbul, or doing some shopping in Bangalore. His career seems to have transitioned from hard-hitting news stories and events like covering intractable conflicts in the Lebanese civil war and the Israeli-Arab conflict to making small talk with the Arabs, Jews, Indians and Chinese about their Superbowl picks! Not that I am complaining, I find much of what he does and say and his personal crusades quit amusing
I do not have a problem with him personally, but it is hard to take him too seriously as of late because starting with the war in Iraq, the whole thing about the world being "flat" and the green revolution, and now with his 'idea' of stimulating the economy, Freidman has ALWAYS gone overboard and dramatized his theories to get people to pay attention. He always goes overboard, he always overstates things, that is why it is difficult to take his cause of the day too seriously. He prefers "shock and awe" in his never ending prescriptions for what is ailing the world, and his solutions are always dramatic and unrealistic. Also, if you are Chinese, you should know that Friedman has been the one guy running around "sounding the alarm" about China and Chinese technological advances, and has long been a proponent of propping up India as a counterbalance to China in Asia. He does not hate China, but he is someone who thinks the USA and India have to work in close cooperation and become buddy-buddies to counter Chinese influence. To him, India equals good and China equals a potentially big problem.
well Friedman is not really a diehard liberal he is more of a hybrid, he is certainly over the top hawkish on foreign policy
I should also add he never really thinks things through, he just comes up with these 'grand' ideas and then proceeds to masturbate over them in his weekly columns. Anyone familiar enough with his writings at the outset of the Iraq conflict would know what I am referring to.
That was actually a jibe at Thomas Friedman for his repeated "the next six month" statements on the Iraq conflict. Surprisingly no one (maybe you did) recognized it. I pretty much agree with your opinion of Friedman. As far as China is concerned, we see too many journalists/politicians in this country are eager to re-establish an imaginary enemy in the post-Cold War era. Friedman is in no way nearly as notorious as, say, Lou Dobbs. But even Dobbs can not make the Blue Team.
I am with you brother, I am with you I did get the reference, that is why I referred back to his rants on how Iraq will become a utopia through some sort of a process of creative destruction. I remember reading those articles and as the conflict dragged on, I would literally ROFLMAO and cry at the same time when I saw that he just did not get it, or was stuck in denial with his ridiculous proclamations that the American invasion and rebuilding of Iraq would bring about a final settlement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I will say this though, he is nothing if not an imaginative writer, which always makes for an interesting read. I won't address Dobbs because I honestly do not think he believes what he says for a moment, he is just trying to corner the market on this anti-globalization, anti-immigration niche and garner ratings. He is really no different than O'Reilly, they are both excellent salesmen and that's why they have successful shows. It is no different than politicians pandering for votes, so I would not read too much into it. As for the general attitude towards China, I really think this whole notion that China is an 'enemy' is just unfounded. Understandably, when you are at the top (which undeniably the U.S. has been for the better part of 60 years now) you are always nervous about that guy in your rear view mirror. There is really no true 'hatred' towards China or the Chinese people that you can find in the average American household. There is economic resentment because so many jobs are fleeing our coasts to Asian powers (China and India, mainly). There is concern about how China (a certain soon-to-be true superpower in its own right) will approach the world with its new found status and its growing military might. Keep in mind that China has almost always been an inward-looking nation over its long history, and has rarely ventured far beyond its own shores. However, Americans see this Chinese growth as both promising and threatening at the same time, and the concern is mostly borne out of an understanding that the future of humanity will be directly tied to and heavily influenced by Chinese behavior, good or bad. But really, there is no true rabid 'hatred' towards China, I really think our sometime tense relationship with China is absolutely no different than our often tense relationship with the European Union countries, and our frequent diplomatic clashes over everything from the economy to foreign policy. Our relationship with both the EU and China is quite unique, because we understand that they are 'mature' powers and we understand we need their cooperation in policing the world moving forward. But I have not really heard anything more than voicing of concerns about any number of real issues that affects both countries and indeed the world. Taking a few jabs here and there means nothing in the grand realm of things (if you noticed, we do it all the time with the Europeans, it is almost like sibling rivalry), they are meant to do nothing more than signal dismay or need for cooperation on whatever happens to be the topic of discussion. So yes, there is some resentment on issues like globalization and trade that have directly affected many American workers, and there is real nervousness regarding the future of China and 'true' Chinese intentions, but this is true of any other 'rival' power in the world today, China happens to be the target of much of this 'uneasiness' and rhetoric simply because as Americans, we subconsciously understand that China is the name of the game now. The rest are also important (EU, Russia, Middle East) but none hold the sort of prominence and importance in bilateral relations as China does and certainly will moving forward. What the heck did I type all that for?
