Ed Driscoll

By Ed Driscoll

Bio

Get Updates From Ed Driscoll

Two Friedmans In One!

October 8, 2011 - 9:51 pm - by Ed Driscoll

Last week, it was Thomas Friedman, Luddite:

Here is a typical evening at a major cable TV network: arrive at Washington studio and be asked to sign in by a contract security guard. Be met by either a young employee who appears to still be in college or an older person who seems to have hung on with tenure. Have your nose powdered by that person. Have your microphone attached by that person. Be positioned in the studio chair by that person, and then look directly into a robotic camera being manipulated by someone in a control room in New York and speak to whoever the host is wherever he or she is. That’s it: one employee, a robot and you.

Think of how many jobs — makeup artist, receptionist, camera person, producer-director — have been collapsed into one.

Advertisement

Today, it’s Thomas Friedman, techno-futurist visionary, praising the man who pioneered much of the technology Friedman was moaning about just last week:

THE melancholy over Steve Jobs’s passing is not just about the loss of the inventor of so many products we enjoy. It is also about the loss of someone who personified so many of the leadership traits we know are missing from our national politics. Those traits jump out of every Jobs obituary: He was someone who did not read the polls but changed the polls by giving people what he was certain they wanted and needed before they knew it; he was someone who was ready to pursue his vision in the face of long odds over multiple years; and, most of all, he was someone who earned the respect of his colleagues, not by going easy on them but by constantly pushing them out of their comfort zones and, in the process, inspiring ordinary people to do extraordinary things.

There isn’t a single national politician today whom you would describe by those attributes, which is why the fake Jobs obituary published in The Onion, the satirical newspaper, struck such a nerve. It began by saying: “Steve Jobs, the visionary co-founder of Apple Computers” — and the only American in the country who had any clue what he was doing — “died Wednesday at the age of 56.” It went on to quote President Obama as saying that Jobs “will be remembered both for the life-changing products he created and for the fact that he was able to sit down, think clearly, and execute his ideas — attributes he shared with no other U.S. citizen. ‘This is a dark time for our country, because the reality is none of the 300 million or so Americans who remain can actually get anything done or make things happen.’ ”

Ouch! Fortunately, the last part is not true. There are still thousands of U.S. innovators who embody Steve Jobs’s most important attribute: They didn’t get the word. They didn’t get the word that we’re down and out. They didn’t get the word that we’re in a recession. They didn’t get the word that Germany is going to eat our breakfast and that China is going to eat our lunch, so they just go out and invent stuff and make stuff and export stuff. Like Jobs, they just didn’t get the word — and thank God.

At one point in his latest column, Friedman writes:

We cannot bail or tax-cut our way to prosperity. We can only, as Jobs understood, invent our way there. That is why America needs to be for the world in the 21st century what Cape Canaveral was to America in the 1960s: the place where everyone everywhere should want to come to start up and make something — something that makes people’s lives more productive, healthy, comfortable, entertained, educated or secure.

But whatever happened to the Cape Canaveral of the 1960s? In Charles Murray and Catherine Bly Cox’s brilliant 1989 book Apollo, the authors sum up the insular world of NASA in 1968, maintaining a breakneck pace to fulfill Kennedy’s vision of landing a man on the moon before the decade was out — and knowing that the clock was ticking down fast:

Within the world of Apollo, the outside world looked completely different. “I missed the entire Vietnam War,” said one, typical of many. “I watched no television, read no newspapers, came to work at six in the morning and worked until nightfall, six or seven days a week for years.”

The people of Apollo were barely aware that the Vietnam War was going on, barely aware that this was a Presidential election year, barely aware that there was such a thing as a War on Poverty or L.S.D. or Sgt. Pepper or race riots.

At some point in the last 20 years or so, NASA decided to embrace the PC ethos of Friedman and the New York Times, becoming more obsessed with global warming, multiculturalism, and feminism than manned space flight. A legendary Freudian slip by Howell Raines, the Times’ disastrous former editor was that “This campaign has made our staff better and, more importantly, more diverse.” Similarly, these days, NASA has more important things on its mind than sending men humans into space.

Victor Davis Hanson posits “The Coming Post-Obama Renaissance.” But in the meantime, why would anyone want to take Friedman’s advice and come to America and to start up and make something? Why risk spending millions to build a business or acquire an existing one, when the feds could kick your door in at any moment? Or legislate it out of business at any moment? Why risk starting a business only to have a major newspaper praise those who are protesting it?

To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, the Gray Lady knows what the common people want — and the Timesmen have gone out of their way to ensure that they’ll get it — good and hard.

PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:

1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.

2. Stay on topic.

3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.

4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.

5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.

These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.

4 Comments, 4 Threads, 1 Trackbacks

  1. 1. SDN

    And if the GOP nominates ORomney, it will be a clear sign that the people haven’t gotten it nearly hard enough.

  2. 2. Apostic

    But whatever happened to the Cape Canaveral of the 1960s?

    Along with everything else, bad press like Apollo 13, Skylab, and Challenger happened.

    As far as I can remember during the sixties through to the early seventies, popular media generally embraced the space program. Journalists tried to talk the talk, giving the impression they were authentic conduits of the jargon heavy events they covered. (Memorable failure: during the leadup to an early space shuttle luanch, Dan Rather interviewed an astronaut. He was talking about what it must be like to wait for the launch inside the cockpit in a “semi-crouched position.” The astronaut looked back at him as if to say, Dan, you’re speaking gibberish.)

    When Challenger fireballed, the world watched seven people die over and over again. The popular press, already in a popularity conflict with a popular president, stepped up as the voice of the people. They demanded answers! They’d given up on talking the talk. And they didn’t seeem to understand the answers they were getting.

    During a communications class I took a few years after the fact, the instructor showed us some footage from (IIRC) the Rogers Commission hearings. An engineer in this video presentation explained that he didn’t halt the launch because he didn’t have “goodness of fit” with data that would suggest stopping the launch. “Aha!” said the instructor while showing us this footage. “‘Goodness of fit’ is such a hackneyed expression he was obviously lying.” At the time, I had a graduate level probability textbook in my backpack. I offered to show the instructor and the rest of the class that, as seen in this book, “goodness of fit” was an established mathematical concept. And it was also something you’d expect from a guy who probably didn’t get out much. But it didn’t matter. Journalistic types like this communications instructor were no longer interested in talking the talk. Demanding answers required less heavy lifting.

    So, yeah, an adversarial media happened to a bunch of cloistered engineers. It wouldn’t have been smart to bet on the latter in a PR conflict. Is it any wonder that NASA later became less about hardcore engineering and more about politically correct images?

    (PS – Nowadays we have journalists who can talk the talk when it comes to global warming anthropocentric climate change. I wonder if, in ten years will, they still be talking the talk or demanding answers.)

  3. 3. John

    The other thing to remember about NASA’s lunar program was it was not universally beloved. The community activists of their day would shriek just prior to every Apollo launch that this money was being wasted, and should go towards social welfare programs.

    With that mindset both running the executive branch today, and people like Global Warming fanatic James Hansen having penetrated the agency from inside, it’s no shock that the current mindset would be for NASA to focus on everything but manned space flight.

  4. 4. Gaffe Prices

    As far as I know, the NASA space program was tasked the manned moon mission, and to land a man on the moon and return him (them) safely to the earth. The astronauts were pilots, engineers were engineers. etc, and they succeeded despite the bureaucracy, not because of it.

    I’m sorry Friedman, but what they did, a virtual impossible mission, with the limited constraints of the technology then, amounts to a lot more than anything that smug totalitarian tyrant Jobs ever did.

One Trackback to “Two Friedmans In One!”