He is starting out by giving you a linear model of an argument.
Dot one is a faux dot.
Dot 2, is actually dot one continued. The dots are not an argument.
They do not follow each other for any reason whatever.
It is logical pointalism.
Most of his readers of the NYT, furthermore, don't even notice this fact, and really are the kind of people who follow their noses through an article like this, so they don't wander off too far into their own musings of what sense his train of argument is making, before he gives them their next so called dot morsel to down. For them, the next dot comes just at the right time, and they use their sense of smell to confirm that it is the next morsel of his repast they should down now. It really is, for the average, NYT reader, a kind of smell test of where the next truffle of wisdom is.
Dot 3 disaster relief bill, is another non sequitor from anything to anything. Friedman is against this kind of regulation, but he hates Trump's deregulation.
Dot 4 another faux dot, automakers complaining about lost profits and instability from deregulation, not climate change per se at all, very ironical to say the least, given the stance of both liberal and conservative laissez faire private enterprise here from the beginning.
Here's the big dot he leaves out: globalization, his globalization, resulted in climate change.
Nothing else.
And as DK says, now, nothing can stop it, and fools who do are fighting the course of Whig history.
And TLF knows it.
He's got Trump caught in his Tar Baby of Globalization.
Globalization has long been Friedman's Baby.
Anyone who touches it now gets stuck in it, regardless of which side you are on, unless you're Friedman, who can manoeuvre through and around it without showing a drop of tar.
He can spend a whole article yanking global warming logic to and fro without ever mentioning globalization as its cause.
Friedman's article is a Pig's Breakfast of nonsense.
No comments:
Post a Comment