Politics

It’s like one of those Japanese game shows where the more humiliation you can stomach, the more parting gifts you can leave with.

Workers asked to train foreign replacements

U.S. workers getting pink slips are told they can get another paycheck or beefed-up severance if they’re willing to teach workers from India, China and other countries how to do their jobs. The foreign workers typically arrive for a few weeks or months of training. When they leave, they take U.S. jobs with them. The U.S. employees who trained them are then laid off.

I know, I know, it’s just business, it’s not personal…but let’s examine what’s really being asked here. You, (yes, imagine it’s you) receive a pink slip. The company is offshoring your job to India or China. You don’t have another gig lined up and you’re not really qualified for one of those 308,000 new service industry jobs, you do have a mortgage and family to feed, and you will hope to get a good reference from the company offshoring your job…I mean, it’s not like they’re firing you because you’re incompetent…you’re just too expensive. And every last hour on the clock you can get, so to speak, you’re gonna need. The company has you over a barrel. What do you do? Say “F&*k you!, I’m outta here?” Feels good sure, but then there goes your severence and there goes any chance of unemployment benefits, not to mention it’s hardly gonna secure you a good reference letter.

Read more

I’m rarely inspired by network television, I must say, but the episode of The West Wing where they cooked up a plan to put two Supreme Court Justices up at the same time (one strong talented voice from the far left and one strong talented voice from the far right), to avoid the otherwise unavoidably mediocre choice a split government normally ensures, truly lifted my spirits. I’ve been a big advocate of balance via extremes in government (although I see my role as belonging on the left), as I suspect it can be done well and helps move the country forward carefully and respectfully, with as little division as possible when it comes to the more emotional issues. (Hell, I endorsed John Edwards who I disagreed with on several points because I thought he stood the best chance of uniting the country were he to win the presidency.)

I mention this because, although it’s apparently been all over the blogosphere, I only learned of the proposed “Democracy Caucus” within the UN yesterday via gentle constant OBWi reader and Tacitus co-blogger deputy blogger Bird Dog.

(There’s only so many reading hours in a day, you know.)

Read more

Timmy (formerly the Wonder Dog)—long-time Tacitus and ObWi commenter and all around good guy—has been bringing up the UN Oil for Food Scandal repeatedly recently, and although I generally support the UN, I do think this issue is being under scrutinized in the blogosphere. Timmy certainly seems to wish to hash it out.

William Safire, in his infinite originality, has opted to call it (or at least perpetuate the title) “Kofigate.” He agrees with Newsday that this is perhaps “the most underreported story of the year.”

A good view from the Far Right on this is found in this Washington Times piece by Newt Gingrich.

Read more

In the previous entry I pointed out how many pro-life advocates muddy the waters of the abortion debate, and gave advice about how to avoid doing that. Since I am pro-life myself, I won’t be so rude as to give advice to the pro-choice side about how they should argue. That won’t stop me from identifying how some of them poison the well of the debate. If some pro-choice advocates want to use that to steer their compatriots to a more civil debate, I’m not opposed. The polling data on abortion reflects a large amount of unease on the part of the US public. You may believe that the best way to deal with that unease is to use the techniques which I outline below. I suspect (or maybe hope) that such tactics will eventually alienate some voters in the middle, which may cause a sudden shift in abortion politics at some point in the future. If that is true, it may be to your advantage to manage such perceptions so that you have some control over the shift.

Read more

Well, if you’re the Bush-Cheney campaign, it’s probably the wrong freakin’ one.

UPDATE: Ob Wi demands, and the President responds! (That’s our story, and we’re sticking to it.) According to CNN: “The White House will allow national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify in public and under oath before the commission investigating the September 11 terrorist attacks[.]” Good thing we wasted a week coming to that conclusion.

In politics, as in life, it’s typically not the action that gets you. It’s the reaction. This ain’t news. Since Watergate, if not before, pundits have repeated that it’s not the third-rate burglary. It’s not the affair. It’s not the $60K in insider profits. No, it’s the response. The cover-up. The lie. The suggestion that if it takes so much to get a Big Mac outta ya, there’s gotta be an Extra Value Meal in there somewhere.

Bush’s response to his Air National Guard records is a case in point. Kevin Drum (among others) dug and dug and dug and dug. You know what was there? Pretty much nothing. But does anyone think that Bush won that round? A show of hands? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

L’affair Plame. Richard “Do you have a grinder for this axe?” Clarke. George “I prefer to twist in the wind” Bush? Tell me, Virginia, exactly who is afraid of Karl Rove? I’ve seen cannier strategies in student council campaigns — high school student council campaigns.

Read more

I am strongly anti-abortion.

However I believe that the pro-life movement is amazing in its ability to squander good will and obscure even the clear moral points which could aid it. This happens because there are certain truths which the pro-life movement does not accept.

Just because you believe you are morally right doesn’t mean that the people who disagree with you are evil. Not every pro-life advocate believes this. But the debate gets played out by many as if pro-choice advocates were evil and engaged in a vicious plot to kill babies for nefarious reasons of their own.

Abortion questions revolve around a disagreement about the moral and legal status of the unborn. It is not clear to many people that a fetus–especially at the early stages of pregnancy ought to be afforded the same protections as an adult. It may be that this disagreement is willful self-blindness about the status of the unborn in late term pregnancies. But in early term pregnancies you need to understand that many people do not see the fetus as a baby. Believing that everyone sees the fetus as a baby, and then ignores the implications of that is a sure way to get on the wrong track when arguing about abortion. It is perfectly possible to believe that a 4-month fetus is not a child without being evil.

Read more

I sincerely hope that all of you enjoyed Senator John Kerry’s pleasant idyll through Election 2004, because it’s officially over:

Senator Kerry’s voting record on national security raises some important questions all by itself. Let’s begin with the matter of how Iraq and Saddam Hussein should have been dealt with. Senator Kerry was in the minority of senators who voted against the Persian Gulf War in 1991. At the time, he expressed the view that our international coalition consisted of ” shadow battlefield allies who barely carry a burden.” Last year, as we prepared to liberate Iraq, he recalled the Persian Gulf coalition a little differently. He said it was a “strong coalition,” and a model to be followed.

Six years after the Gulf War, in 1997, Saddam Hussein was still defying the terms of the cease-fire. And as President Bill Clinton considered military action against Iraq, he found a true believer in John Kerry. The Senator from Massachusetts said, quote, “Should the resolve of our allies wane, the United States must not lose its resolve to take action.” He further warned that if Saddam Hussein were not held to account for violation of U.N. resolutions, some future conflict would have ” greater consequence.” In 1998, Senator Kerry indicated his support for regime change, with ground troops if necessary. And, of course, when Congress voted in October of 2002, Senator Kerry voted to authorize military action if Saddam refused to comply with U.N. demands.

A neutral observer, looking at these elements of Senator Kerry’s record, would assume that Senator Kerry supported military action against Saddam Hussein. The Senator himself now tells us otherwise. In January he was asked on TV if he was, quote, “one of the anti-war candidates.” He replied, “I am.” He now says he was voting only to, quote, “threaten the use of force,” not actually to use force.

Even if we set aside these inconsistencies and changing rationales, at least this much is clear: Had the decision belonged to Senator Kerry, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, today, in Iraq. In fact, Saddam Hussein would almost certainly still be in control of Kuwait. (Laughter.)

Yup, Cheney’s speech. Damn feisty one, and from the accounts that I’ve heard so far from my fellow VRWCers, well presented, too. Now, I’m sure that a lot of you are prepared to spin, explain, redefine and (probably, in a couple of cases at least) correct Cheney’s comments… but I would seriously recommend against thinking that this was not bad mojo for Kerry, skillfully applied. I’m betting that this one is going to have an impact past the base (who will spread it far and wide; we’ve been chomping at the bit lately*), so watch out.

Of course, if you feel confident enough, you can ignore my advice completely. I have it on excellent authority that my side is all made up of dunderheaded poltroons.

Moe

Read more