On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Nick Arnett wrote: > Indeed, but I do see Friedman taking a step too far in that direction. > Perhaps it hasn't been clear enough that, as I wrote in my first and later > responses, I see his essay not as utterly wrong, but "a dangerous line of > thinking." That's a criticism of the article for the direction it points > more than what it says itself. But my words seem to have been taken much > more as a criticism of the literal contents of the essay, rather than as > pointing the great danger of thinking that way. Perhaps I should have been > far more emphatic about that point.
Umm, if you re-read your original criticisms, I think you'll find that you lambaste the essay quite thoroughly and in no uncertain terms. (Of course, there's also an interpretative disagreement about whether or not Friedman actually thought "that way," the way you righty describe as dangerous.) > It isn't. And to a large extent, I make the assumption, faulty though it > may be, that the people on this list know enough about me and my > enthusiastic participation in democratic capitalism to know that I know, > first-hand, about the good as well as the bad. For Pete's sake, Bill Gates > used to recommend me to companies developing market strategies -- how much > deeper can one be in capitalism!? When I criticize the media and corporate > excesses, it is only after spending a couple of decades immersed in them at > a strategic level. Perhaps it is an unfortunate limitation of the medium, > but none of us can state our background, beliefs and credentials in every > message. This is a form of publishing in which no one "article" (message) > should be taken alone. Nick, I don't think I accused you of being a communist or anything other than a red-blooded moneygrubbing American boozehound (joke, ok? a joke) -- just of reading way too much into Friedman's little op-ed piece. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Allah is great, but Miss February ain't half bad, either.
