I love this column when it wonders about primary and secondary policy effects as they relate to our interconnected world and self-referential histories. Last week I just thought that focusing on the tertiary effects(tech upgrade on agriculture->reduced demand for illegal labor->effect of reduced demand on countries of origin of illegal laborers) was a step too far, especially when you seemed to imply that grape-growers in Oregon should be factoring the potential hair-thin marginal effects on the economies of Latin America into their technology vs. labor decision. While the IWW may have once held court in the northwest, they don't now, especially not among vineyard owners.

This time the individual story lines are all interesting, but you don't need a grand meta-narrative to connect them, even if that narrative is that it's hard to find a grand meta-narrative.

Your elaborate entrees are great; I hope you don't stop striving for them. I bet your readership would enjoy some Dim Sum as well.

The poll results they've printed don't mention anything at all about taxing the rich.

There's a big difference between wanting to set some sort of limits on CEO compensation(scaled to employee wages I would assume) and wanting to raise taxes on the wealthy. Further, without any past polling information we really don't know how much of a new phenomenon it is. A point of view being dismissed by pundits still might be held by the majority of a society for quite some time.

Lastly, these richest countries aren't the ones complaining about globalization the most. They're just the ones that the FT deigned to ask. What do you want to bet that a bunch of the other 186 UN members states have significantly more negative views of globalization's effects?

RobH must be one of those TimesSuperSelect members who can access Friedman's hidden essays, the ones that aren't either his patented anecdotal econ flavored cotton candy, with arguments so light and airy, or his "cautious concern" war thoughts, letting us know that things appear bad, but there are opportunities right around the corner.

That should be enough of a straw man to distract him for a while.

When Friedman questions the way the war is being run, he is still being a war supporter. He agreed, and may still agree, with Bush's fantasy endpoint, an American client-state in Mesopotamia garrisoned by our troops, he just had some quibbles about the means used to get there. He got sucked in by the beltway cases for invasion and still hasn't been able to extricate himself from that quagmire of political thought.

It's amazing how handy being a poor communicator can be when your only goal is obfuscation.

I'm waiting for the executive order that delays the election for "emergency reasons".

This is a stretch, even for this column.

Not investing in more education, job training, etc. is always short-sighted. But people live in the short-term and, as the saying goes, in the long-term we're all dead. Balancing the present and future will always be a struggle, and is something that can be discussed without desperately linking it to the inevitable spread of technology.

Yep, I said inevitable. Even if these growers in Oregon don't adopt it others will and with adoption comes efficiencies and further adoption. Regions can and will boycott this "unnatural" picking procedure, but take a look at how well France's wine industry is doing if you want see what happens when commodity producers avoid "innovation", for whatever reason.

Further why would you possibly believe it is the responsibility of this country to determine our production techniques in such a way as to shepherd citizens of developing countries around the globe. It is not our responsibility to provide jobs for citizens of other countries. There may have been a time when that was true, but our citizens have made it pretty clear that's not what they want now. Shockingly, I would argue that allowing U.S. farmers to better compete in the global marketplace is a good thing for U.S citizens, provided the gains aren't being derived from toxic sources, be they chemicals or subsidies. Using technology to free yourself of labor demands is different than dumping low cost GMO crops on developing markets, strip mining, clear cutting, patenting compounds from indigenous plants, or any of a host of the other truly evil economic actions we support.

I wonder if similar motivations rise up in NASCAR positioning, whether or not drivers wait to pit, past the point of efficiency, till after they've been "in front" for a bit for their sponsors?

"It's a great question, one that today's increasingly arrogant atheists have yet to answer. If humans are nothing more than neurologically programmed DNA machines, why not run sacred applications that bring happiness and meaning and active compassion?"

These "applications" have pretty elusive quantifiable positive effects and can have obviously detrimental side effects on the users and those around them.

Why not advocate cocaine use while you're at it? Think of the productivity gains.

I'm being unfair clearly, though from my perspective spirituality really should be treated like drug use. It should be legal and recreational, and hopefully shouldn't determine anyone's perspective on the world around them.

I knew there must be a good reason not to go to the gym.

I love how his reasoning for pushing on with the mini-surge is explicitly and solely based on domestic political calculus. What president would dare try to conduct a war to solidify some poll numbers?

Does Kristol have a chart somewhere detailing how Bush can spend U.S. soldier's lives for "political capital"?