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.

'"The walls had fallen down and the Windows had opened, making the world much flatter than it had ever been, but the age of seamless global communication had not yet dawned."

How the fuck do you open a window in a fallen wall? More to the point, why would you open a window in a fallen wall? Or did the walls somehow fall in such a way that they left the windows floating in place to be opened?'

Such a good summary of Friedman's book: Man travels to India, plays golf, sees Pizza Hut billboard, listens to Indian CEO mutter small talk, writes 470-page book reversing the course of 2000 years of human thought.