finknottle

Strawman caricture. The right to do whatever they want subject to the calculations of US foreign policy would be fairer. If North Korean commandoes slip across the border and seize a bunch of servicemen, we do nothing - any action might be met with the devestation of South Korea. If Somali gunmen siezed some US soldiers and we knew where they were, there would be a rescue in force within days. Likewise, if Russia declared 100 mile no-fly zone off of its borders, we'd be reluctant to test them. If Bermuda did the same, we'd pretty much ignore it.

Where did I say that? If anything, I would argue that the meaning of 'law' is vacuous outside owns own country. I might say it's ok for us to go to country X and do Y - but that would be a calculation based on foreign policy considerations, not on some misguided belief in the universality of the 'law.' Nor would I expect that such an act would be considered lawfull by the host country.

Because auto workers in the south don't count? Is it because they are in red states?

A start of many repeated bailouts, you mean. Nobody has addressed what is to me the most obvious point: the burn rate. The big two each went through almost $7 billion in cash last quarter. An impressive turnaround would cut that to $4 billion. If they achieved that overnight, then the extra $25 billion would last 9 months. What then? How do you go from losing $7 billion dollars a quarter to profitibility in 9 months?

Yes. This was the first time a tanker was attacked. If you want to engage in conspiracy speculation, you should finger Egypt. Pirates targeting tankers makes the paying steep fees to use the Suez Canal more attractive.

Please explain.

I'm not suggesting that. I'm pointing out that that is not a solution consistent with the thinking of the left. I am simply asking what they would find an acceptable solution. Leave it up to Interpol? Set up a UN protection flotilla to sail around with blue smokestacks monitoring the situation? Would force for anything but self-defence be authorized? That would be a departure from normal peace-keeping operations... Or would we craft a UN resolution authorizing nations to initiate military combat in the area at their own discretion?

He hasn't sat down for negotiations without preconditions with bin Laden yet. Give him time.

No, the right (or at least myself) believes that the protections and rights of the US apply only to the citizens of the US, and that its mission is to further the interests of its citizens. Everything else is belongs in the realm of foreign policy.

The Supreme Court seems to want to extend legal protections to non-citizens. This doesn't begin after you have been forcibly taken and your case examined, it begins before. What jurisdiction does the US have here? Last time I checked, an LA cop can't pull you over in NY and then inspect the contents of your car. Even if he see's you driving with expired tags. Nor can a US marine stationed at the Embassy in Nairobi start shooting at people he thinks might be carjackers. Indeed, my understanding is that the US military cannot perform law enforcement duties without special authorities. Let alone law enforcement in international territory and where no US laws are involved. Do I think the world should do nothing? Of course not. I'm only looking at it through the prism of the left, and wondering how they would reconcile the granting of US legal protections to foreigners with the use of the military to solve the problem in the absence of any UN authorization. Personally, I see no problem with sinking them on sight.

Ok, no - and the Nike story was relevant, sorry. But the subthread about what happens to US auto manufacturing if the big three go under was.

And what if the pirates radio that they were the ones first attacked? Or that it is their ship that they are trying to recover? Do their claims get due process, or can a sailor on a ship make a unilateral decision on who to start firing at? Who makes that decision, and on what is the authority to fire on a vessel based? Claims of another?

What is your point exactly? Nike doesn't make their shoes in Japan. Japan is not the barefoot, two dollar a day cheap labor country you seem to think. It is in fact an affluent country, with personnal savings rates far higher than the US, and with a labor shortage. In fact, I believe every significant auto manufacturer is based in a developed country. I very much doubt you could find one whose workers there have salaries averaging less than a half those in the US. Even when they outsource significant operations for labor reasons, it is to places like Spain.

Sure to ruffle the feathers here, but IMO an excellant and insightfull writeup of how Hillary became the 'Great Right Hope:' http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...15/834badnb.asp

Worker salaries (as opposed to total compensation) at Toyota and Honda in Japan average $26,000. Toyota's salaries for US employees (which includes management) is probably in the neighborhood of $57,000. But keep up the enlightened stereotypes. http://www.finfacts.com/irishfinancenews/a...e_1012890.shtml http://www.simplyhired.com/a/salary/search...or+Sales,+U.S.A.

Under the left's thinking, under what legal standing could the US sink or a pirate ship pursuing another, or even intervene for that matter? Even the vague mantle of National Security Interests (which the civil liberties lawyers fight tooth and nail) wouldn't apply. Wouldn't we need a UN mandate and congressional approval? If we can intervene there, then can we unilaterally intervene in muggings or carjackings in foreign countries? Drug wars in Mexico?

If the big three go under, there will still be some cars made in the USA. The only difference is the ownership. And as far as that goes, you are free to buy stock in Toyota... so it's actually only about which government gets the corporate taxes. If the USG wants companies to be headquartered here, it knows what to do - lower the corporate taxes.

While researching something else related to the automobile industry, I came across the following 2006 tidbit on GM's plans for a $250 research center on hybrid technologies, to be located in China: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/29/business/gm.php It makes one wonder what strings were attached to the current $25 billion, and raises into question the oft-repeated claim about how investing in green technology is going to create all these great non-exportable jobs.

Not sure. But even if they are (as is likely in Europe), I'm fairly confident they aren't averaging $72 an hour. Labour climate is a key factor in determining where you set up shop. Nevertheless, I do know that one of the problems GM faced with taking over Saab was existing high labor costs and absenteeism. In terms of labor, Ford had an easier time with Jaguar coming as it did after the Thatcher administration, which did a lot to reign in the unions and make the UK more competative. Jag became profitable, I don't think Saab ever did. I don't know anything about the situation of the US lines that are manufactured there (like GM Opal, employing 50,000).

One interesting point neglected about the big three - the financial hemoraging is primarily due to US operations. GM and Ford's foreign operations are generally healthy and their marketshares are about 10% each in most countries. They have been quietly and steadily increasing the number of cars they actually manufacture overseas and sell here (as has their foreign-based competition).

They have to go under sometime. If nothing is done now and they collapse early in the year, he extends unemployment benefits and gives out some monthly 'stimulus' checks to the poor. He rightfully gets none of the blame, the bar is lowered even further for him economically, and he may even wind up looking good. On the otherhand, if we begin bailing them out now, he will inherit the lose-lose problem. In that case, five to one he has to appoint an Auto Supremo to make and take the blame for whatever unpopular bailout decision results.

The logic is that the interests of national security can be advanced by enlightened foreign policy and preparedness at home. This can best be done (so the thinking goes) at the grass roots through the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps respectively. In the early part of his campaign, he had as part of his stump speech a call for making those organizations as large as the DOD - he was never pinned down on what 'as large' meant, presumably personnel. I'm not sure to what extent he is serious about this, versus just just being an issue-sidler, neutralizing his opponents by copying their policies. Kucinich, if you'll recall, had as a signature item the idea of forming a Department of Peace. Note that volunteer doesn't mean unpaid, it only means you were not drafted. It's supposed to suggest you have undertaken a noble calling. You still get paid a salary in those organizations.

I think this is absolutely correct. The clip is out of context. I think his vision for Americorps is completely unsound, but there is nothing insidious about it

5-10 years? That would be fine if it were so. Ford went through $7.7 billion in cash last quarter. They can last 7 more months at that rate, plus another 4 with lines of credit. GM burned through $6.9 billion, but has less cash in reserve. So what does $25 billion buy? A rosey scenario would have the big three losing only $10 billion per quarter combined - a pretty quick turnaround. That $25 billion gives them only 7 and a half extra months.

Well, regulating them more and raising their taxes sure isn't going to turn them around. That's why the conservative answer is to let them go under. Take our medicine and move on.