Still Hating America.

[Tables R Us]

Spanky is losing an economic idol. The WSJ reports that Alan Blinder has revised his pro-free trade views, now seeing it as imposing major costs on US workers that are educated and politically vocal and who will fight against free trade policies that undercut their standard of living. Samuelson is joined by other major economists, Paul Samuelson, Lawrence Summers, Ralph Gomory, and Dani Rodrik. Further, in the non-scientific poll of WSJ readers, 47% thought free trade hurt US workers, 39% thought it helped, and 14% thought it was neutral.

Spanky's pro free trade ideology of expanding world GDP if that increases world GDP even if that reduces income for the majority of developed world workers isn't selling. Him and Bush economic advisor Barry Mankiw will lose peddling that. No one cares about increasing world GDP or helping the third world poor at the cost of sabatoging their own livelihood.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1175...ys_us_page_one

Yet today Mr. Blinder has changed his message -- helping lead a growing band of economists and policy makers who say the downsides of trade in today's economy are deeper than they once realized.

... Alan Blinder tells the Journal's Jon Hilsenrath why he predicts that many highly skilled white collar occupations will soon be outsourced, including his own.... The job insecurity those workers face today is "only the tip of a very big iceberg," Mr. Blinder says.

Mostly he wants to shock politicians, policy makers and other economists into realizing how big a change is coming and what new sectors it will reach. "This is something factory workers have understood for a generation," he says. "It's now coming down on the heads of highly educated, politically vocal people, and they're not going to take it."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

John McCain needs a reality check.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Those ideas are somewhat contradictory. Turning up the heat is a bad way to speed a revolt from within. Which may be why someone in Iran had the notion to capture a bunch of British troops.

Why? I don't get this?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Why? I don't get this?

Because when a country is threatened by another, its reaction is to pull together. Political opposition becomes delegitimized. Think about how Bush's support skyrocketed after 9/11. The Iranian government is not monolithic, but stepping up the pressure on Iran is a great way to marginalize whatever opposition there is to the government and strengthen the hardliners. The hardliners surely know this, which might be why they captured those British troops.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Because when a country is threatened by another, its reaction is to pull together. Political opposition becomes delegitimized. Think about how Bush's support skyrocketed after 9/11. The Iranian government is not monolithic, but stepping up the pressure on Iran is a great way to marginalize whatever opposition there is to the government and strengthen the hardliners. The hardliners surely know this, which might be why they captured those British troops.

That was not the case in the USSR. Are you suggesting that the ME is different?

[Adder]

Originally posted by sgtclub
We shouldn't do anything militarily, they aren't our troops. But we should be concerned about the situation and turning up the heat diplomatically and not letting them use this as a distraction from the sanctions being debated at the UN. We also should be supporting the Brits and actively having a forward looking strategy in the country to speed the revolt from within (much like we did in the USSR).

For what its worth, I agree with you.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That was not the case in the USSR. Are you suggesting that the ME is different?

To the extent that you're saying that political opposition survived in the USSR notwithstanding confrontation with the US, I think you might be misunderstanding Ty's point.

When threatened, a country tends to rally and political opposition gets delegitimized in the short term. You're talking about a time horizon for the entirety of the Cold War.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by sgtclub
turning up the heat diplomatically

This administration doesn't talk to terrorists. At this point, even talking directly to Iran is allowing them a win. We need to wait 2 years (or, at least, have a new SoS) to engage Iran without looking weak.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Adder
For what its worth, I agree with you.

This is happening far too often lately.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
This administration doesn't talk to terrorists. At this point, even talking directly to Iran is allowing them a win. We need to wait 2 years (or, at least, have a new SoS) to engage Iran without looking weak.

We are already engaged with Iran. There were 1 on 1 meetings a week or 2 ago. I suspect they will be very effective (NOT).

[Adder]

Originally posted by sgtclub
We are already engaged with Iran. There were 1 on 1 meetings a week or 2 ago. I suspect they will be very effective (NOT).

I do (pause.. pause) NOT think you understand how the not joke works.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by sgtclub
We are already engaged with Iran. There were 1 on 1 meetings a week or 2 ago. I suspect they will be very effective (NOT).

Huh. Missed that. I see that there is a planned meeting re Iraq with Iran to be present, but that's multi-party anyway.

This implies that the hostage taking is possibly part of a prisoner exchange offer. And also that the US and British navies are regularly patrolling on Zodiacs in the disputed waters, providing the Iranians with ample opportunity to do this next time they want hostages.

http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php...9-030729-1230r

[Shape Shifter]

• WASHINGTON (AP) - To back up his point that pulling out of Iraq would be a disaster, President Bush has quoted opinions from the secretary of defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top U.S. general in Iraq—and now, two bloggers from Baghdad.
  Bush made a surprising reference to the blogosphere during a spirited defense of his war strategy on Wednesday. The mention seemed even more unusual because the president didn't identify whom he was quoting, so he seemed to be leaning on anonymous commentary.
  
  "They have bloggers in Baghdad, just like we've got here," Bush told the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
  
  Then he began to quote: "Displaced families are returning home, marketplaces are seeing more activity, stores that were long shuttered are now reopening. We feel safer about moving in the city now. Our people want to see this effort succeed."
  
  His point was that Iraqi people are seeing signs of progress—and what better example of their unbridled expression than blogs.
  
  It turns out, the White House made clear hours later, that he was quoting two brothers, Mohammed and Omar Fadhil. They write an English- language blog from Baghdad called IraqTheModel.com. Both of them got to meet Bush in the Oval Office in 2004.
  
  In his speech, Bush was pulling select lines from an op-ed that the brothers wrote. It appeared in The Wall Street Journal on March 5.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

What would spanky say?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter

• WASHINGTON (AP) - To back up his point that pulling out of Iraq would be a disaster, President Bush has quoted opinions from the secretary of defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top U.S. general in Iraq—and now, two bloggers from Baghdad.
  Bush made a surprising reference to the blogosphere during a spirited defense of his war strategy on Wednesday. The mention seemed even more unusual because the president didn't identify whom he was quoting, so he seemed to be leaning on anonymous commentary.
  
  "They have bloggers in Baghdad, just like we've got here," Bush told the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
  
  Then he began to quote: "Displaced families are returning home, marketplaces are seeing more activity, stores that were long shuttered are now reopening. We feel safer about moving in the city now. Our people want to see this effort succeed."
  
  His point was that Iraqi people are seeing signs of progress—and what better example of their unbridled expression than blogs.
  
  It turns out, the White House made clear hours later, that he was quoting two brothers, Mohammed and Omar Fadhil. They write an English- language blog from Baghdad called IraqTheModel.com. Both of them got to meet Bush in the Oval Office in 2004.
  
  In his speech, Bush was pulling select lines from an op-ed that the brothers wrote. It appeared in The Wall Street Journal on March 5.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

What would spanky say?

Am I the only one cynical enough to be starting to suspect that the only objective the White House currently has wrt to Iraq is to make sure the Dems get blaimed for the aftermath?

Bush:
In combative speech yesterday, Bush said "the American people will know who to hold responsible" if funding for the war stalls

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That was not the case in the USSR. Are you suggesting that the ME is different?

This is true of just about every country, including Russia, which is why Putin has used Chechnyan terrorism as a way to squash domestic opposition. I don't know what you mean when you say it wasn't the case with the USSR. We weren't ratcheting up the pressure in the way you describe when Gorbachev was attempting his reforms.