Interesting Op-ed by Tom Friedman.

[madinmaryland]

Even though he has been an apologist for bush's war in iraq, this makes for an interesting read.

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: July 27, 2005
There is no doubt that Lance Armstrong's seventh straight victory in the Tour de France, which has prompted sportswriters to rename the whole race the Tour de Lance, makes him one of the greatest U.S. athletes of all time. What I find most impressive about Armstrong, besides his sheer willpower to triumph over cancer, is the strategic focus he brings to his work, from his prerace training regimen to the meticulous way he and his cycling team plot out every leg of the race. It is a sight to behold. I have been thinking about them lately because their abilities to meld strength and strategy - to thoughtfully plan ahead and to sacrifice today for a big gain tomorrow - seem to be such fading virtues in American life.

..snip

I recently spent time in Ireland, which has quietly become the second-richest country in the E.U., first by going through some severe belt-tightening in which everyone had to sacrifice, then by following that with a plan to upgrade the education of its entire work force, and a strategy to recruit and induce as many global high-tech companies and researchers as possible to locate in Ireland. The Irish have a plan. They are focused. They have mobilized business, labor and government around a common agenda. They are playing offense.

Wouldn't you think that if you were president, after you had read the umpteenth story about premier U.S. companies, such as Intel and Apple, building their newest factories, and even research facilities, in China, India or Ireland, that you would summon the country's top business leaders to Washington ask them just one question: "What do we have to do so you will keep your best jobs here? Make me a list and I will not rest until I get it enacted."

And if you were president, and you had just seen more suicide bombs in London, wouldn't you say to your aides: "We have got to reduce our dependence on Middle East oil. We have to do it for our national security. We have to do it because only if we bring down the price of crude will these countries be forced to reform. And we should want to do it because it is clear that green energy solutions are the wave of the future, and the more quickly we impose a stringent green agenda on ourselves, the more our companies will lead innovation in these technologies."

..snip

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/27/opinion/27friedman.html?

[IdaBriggs]

1. The assumption required is that Bush gives a sh*t about the US.

He doesn't. He cares about himself and his corporate cronies. If taking jobs overseas makes them rich, he's all for it. Duh!

[madinmaryland]

3. I think the assumption he is making,

is that if we had a president that actually cared about finding solutions for the American people and not the here and now corporate solutions, then these kind of questions would get answered. I think its a slam at * and all of the sheeple that voted for him.

[cybildisobedience]

10. that list, I'm sure, would include Friedman

who couldn't stop praising Bush in the run-up to war.

[chelsea0011]

2. You must first believe that this country has a thinking, living, breathing

President

[skids]

4. What do we have to do so you will keep your best jobs here?

To which the corporations would respond:

Institute slave labor so we can pay them shit, and repeal all the safety laws and provide us with liability protection so we can work them to death, and you've got a deal -- we'll bring the best jobs -- the ones with the 45 year life expectancy, that is, back to the U.S.

[CJCRANE]

5. Mmm...

I think Tom Friedman needs to jump in a time machine and go back and change the 2000 election result if he wants a president with strong green credentials and experience at supporting the IT industry.

[Ravenseye]

6. It is interesting

I think people need to re-read the op-ed and not bring their normal 'Friedman is a Dick' filter. I read it as a scathing indictment of not just the lazy American mentality, but of Bush himself.

by paragraph

1 - Lance Armstrong works hard to win, most people don't.
2 - Chinese leaders are engineers not lawyers, they understand the numbers.
3 - American CEO's are extremely greedy.
4 - American CEO's don't want to be paid on performance, they just want lots of money.
5 - The Irish are doing it right, money into education, tax incentives for high tech companies.
6 - Bush isn't doing his job to keep jobs in America.
7 - Bush isn't doing his job to protect America's national security and environment.
8 - The energy bill is a pointless pos.
9 - Bush isn't doing his job to secure the peace in Iraq.
10 - Maybe we deserve Bush because we're all lazy POS's

I'd say that's fairly scathing.

[madinmaryland]

7. Thats the way I read it,

and why I felt that it needed to be posted. It was very scathing and seems to me to be saying if we had a real president who would stand up to the big business, we might be able to solve our problems. An unusual opinion coming from Friedman. It almost sounded like he had been listening to Paul Krugman.

[Ravenseye]

8. It did sound more like Krugman

I was surprised when I read it. Normally I take everything he writes with a grain of salt, including his supposed expertise in the mid-east and israeli-palestinian conflict...this though kind of shocked me. It sort of sounded like a conservative waking up, and angry at the President for not being what he promised to be.

[K-W]

9. Yes, but his bad economic ideas taint the analysis.

But you are right. It is, from his perspective, a scathing attack and contains some valid points.

If Friedman could stick to scrutinizing those in power I would be much more inclined to forgive his intellectual shortcomings, but it seems as though his intellectual shortcomings usually lead him to defend power and legitimize exploitation in economics and foriegn policy.

[Ravenseye]

12. I agree

though I think from any perspective it's a pretty scathing attack these days. Still you're right about Friedman. Generally I scoff at thing he writes, but this made some sense.

[Frederik]

11. I read it as an ideological defense of globalization

Governments need to compete about attracting buisnesses by offering low taxes, low wages and as little bothersome regulation as possible, or their countries deserve to be left behind in the global rat race to the bottom. And yes, Friedman is a dick.

[yurbud]

13. I hope Buzh is losing Friedman--he's one of the more reasonable sounding

neocons--puts an unrealistic sane face on insane policies.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog: