Most of the article is critical of Friedman's writing and communication style. For example the author quotes Friedman: I stomped off, went through security, bo

Most of the article is critical of Friedman's writing and communication style. For example the author quotes Friedman: I stomped off, went through security, bought a Cinnabon, and glumly sat at the back of the B line, waiting to be herded on board so that I could hunt for space in the overhead bins. Then the author critiques: Forget the Cinnabon. Name me a herd animal that hunts. Name me one. This critique was surprising to me. I found Friedman's passage to be quite understandable and it did not offend on any level. Being "herded on board" is a common phrase, and "hunting for space" is also a common phrase. To me they are fine used together because I don't actually expect the writer to be latching onto the herding metaphor in such a committed way. They are simply cliched phrases and the metaphorical herding phrase isn't meant to be used as a metaphor but rather a cliched way to communicate a common experience. Perhaps this style of writing is less than ideal, but for someone critiquing a book about ideas it seems weak to complain about the writing and communication style and ignore the actual ideas that are being presented.