Fuck Tom Friedman. Isn't this the same fool who advocated going into Iraq so we could tell people in the Middle East to "Suck. On.This."? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Frie…)

The problem isn't just his irritating over-use of analogies -- it's that the analogies suck.

Friedman is as right as a Zoom user is about the iPad.

Which means the technical argument is sound, but it's still a stupid choice.

I hope you meant that this is his column stripped to just the cliches and metaphors. Because I can't imagine how the rest could be more nonsensical.

#3, Friedman is more nonsensical than that on a regular basis.

This made my day. I can't believe the NY Times still gives his screaming, tortured metaphors so many column inches every day.

Matt Taibbi's review of Friedman's writing is a hilarious classic:
http://www.nypress.com/article-11419-fla…

The very first paragraph of Friedman's Wikipedia article contains this gem--

It has been noted that there is an air of the champion shot-putter about his appearance and bearing.

--and the top banner complains about "external links"?!

Wow. He's still irrelevant. Thanks for reminding me that Thom Friedman is a sucky writer.

@5 Yeah, the part about his anti-ear is spot on. Friedman could make the concept of a savings account incomprehensible.

Speaking of writing, I'll tell you what really bugs me. That pathetic phrase "win the future" that Obama kept using in the State of the Union. It makes me not even care about the substance of the proposals he was making. If Obama wants to bring hope and change to this country, he should start by hiring a better speechwriter.

OK, all sarcasm aside...

Yes, we know Tom Friedman isn't as wonderful a writer as Eli Sanders or Jonathan Chait, but he is an opinion writer, and did any of you take issue with, or even notice, the actual opinions he was expressing in this column?

@5 Thank you for that.

#9 His opinions suck too.

Win The Future sucks more, tho.