Jed/replies Jack Re: Tom Friedman: I never implied that Tom was not a fairly &/or very well informed officionado of 'alternative energy.' I was making reference to the 'specific' issue of fusion/cold fusion development.' In short: The immediate issue-at-hand for not only Vortex but for the entire Planet Earth-21st-Century. So being more than casually interested in Tom Friedman's personal stake as a World Wide Syndicated Columnist & best-selling author should not be to onerous a query for one of my degree of temerity. What say you?
So I was 'not' indeed 'wrong.' Nor either was I trying to be 'right.' What I was getting at was for cause of sharp scrutiny to be analysizing the 'nuance' and subtle 'slanting' of not only Tom Friedman's discourse, but also of those of the entirety of participants public dialogue vs their respective likely &/or possible agenda's for 'spinning;' if indeed they have any other than simple straight-forward enthusiasm. And yes I do believe that Tom Friedman is an extremely informed player; likely more than we'll ever know. And yes there is far more to his dialogue than is readily perceived. Tom's discourse is one of the most publically audienced discourses on 'any topic' of any single individual upon the planet. And this man is a professional and 'considers' and hones his dialogue with maybe more talent & craft than any peer of his to-date. In short, Tom Friedman is the 'Maestro' and well worth more than simple cursory analysis. And I do believe that before I said to, "look for who ever too readily rises to 'debunk,' take offense on Tom's behest, and/or cast aspersions of personal motivation to whomsoever might 'dare' to take a 'closer' look. And that appears to be 'you' from where I'm sitting. So what gives? Why the chip on the shoulder about Tom? I am hardly attacking Tom nor the ongoing quest for fusion/cold fusion. Neither is Tom. Though I believe that it is 'not' too much of a stretch to think that Tom has an 'insider's privledged view' of some developments within the specific field of fusion/cold fusion which is hardly that of a bemused passer-by. So what? Tom Friedman has a window to major international players. If he didn't then he wouldn't be 'Tom Friedman.' And I'm hardly taking acception to 'anything' that Tom is saying nor any position that I've ever listen to him illucidate. I'm mere asking why; and this hardly a crime nor a point for anybody to consider 'wrong' unless they are generally-paranoid; or; paranoid for a more specific motive. The last thing that I am doing is trying to prescribe 'dark-motives' to Tom Friedman nor anybody else; unless they indicate clearly and obviously otherwise. However: This business of getting the 'inside skinny' straight is like playing/observing an international shell game where only the finest tuned observations may 'possibly' discern the 'pea under the pod.' And Tom Friedman is so finely tuned-subtle that he could balance a dime on the edge of a very sharp knife. And I say this of Mr. Friedman out of a pure sense of admiration; and maybe just a wee-bit of envy.-JO- > Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:16:48 -0400 > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > From: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Vo]:The two irritating Nates > > Jack O Suileabhain wrote: > > >Tom Friedman NYTimes: The most telling element in this entire > >extended discourse, is of course, Tom Friedman's sudden infatuation > >with this subject. > > That's wrong. Friedman has been promoting and writing about > alternative energy for many years, before it was fashionable. He > seems to know a lot about the subject, although I get the impression > it is "surface" knowledge. He did not mention any of the problems > with photovoltaic devices such as the long energy payback time. He > did not suggest solar-thermal instead. > > - Jed > _________________________________________________________________ Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy! http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
