I got hooked on his work with Longitudes and Attitudes about six months ago, and have been slowly digesting his other works ever since. I’ve found his newspaper column to be very interesting, and am currently reading From Beirut to Jerusalem, which so far stands up to the quality I’ve come to expect from him.

Anyway it is good to have a counter point. I would just like to read a counterpoint to Friedman that really challanged his assertions point for point.

Surely it’s better written than a Slashdot comment, though? Even if it’s a complete misrepresentation of Friedman, I’ve never seen the GNAA write anything as funny as “According to the mathematics of the book, if you add an IPac to your offshoring, you go from running to sprinting with gazelles and from eating with lions to devouring with them.”

I haven’t read The World is Flat yet nor do I claim to know the issues of globalization other than there are good and bad aspects to it but we are always inundated with the extreme views of both.

What I do know from what I have read in Friedman’s book is that he looks at things from a rational angle. At times his emotions seeps through, at times I don’t agree with him, but he doesn’t muddy the waters with rhetoric and I can respect that.

Perhaps I will change my mind when I read more of his writings, which I plan to do. The question is have you actually read his stuff or do you just go off what his detractors write about him (or were you just pointing me to the “review” for contrast)?