Sharon:
Harris Miller bears great responsibility for the present state of the U.S. economy. It's not all the fault of pro-MNC Republican office-holders.

Miller has been a driving force behind legislation which permits corporations to import low-wage Third World workers into the U.S. where they are used to REPLACE American workers. He has also served as a propagandist hyping alleged benefits of outsourcing and fought off all attempts to track this phenomenon or limit corporate discretion re. outsourcing.

Miller, is not as reported by some, a simple "tech exec", "businessman" or even a merely unsavory-sounding "lobbyist".

Miller was a "big fish" in the outsourcing and American worker replacement lobby. He was the president of the ITAA and WITSA. Miller has been a moving force for the outsourcing and worker replacement lobby.

There are hundreds of thousands of displaced American white collar workers who have suffered grievous injury due, in part, to Harris Miller's actions. Miller and his corporate leader friends are trashing the American economy and the American middle class. They are ripping the heart out of our ability to do any research and development in wide areas of high tech -- not just information technology.

Are my views credible? Am I an "expert"? You be the judge.

I have witnessed outsourcing first-hand as a software engineer and database administrator in the Fortune 500. I have written about this phenomenon for more than 3 years. (See "Lost Your Job Yet?" on RK and RD). I have engaged in political activism re. this issue for more than 3 years. I have been published in Computerworld and Counterpunch, among other journals. And, I served as the Policy Analyst for Rescue American Jobs. I've been interviewed and quoted in a number of publications including the LA Times and the New York Times.

I strongly encourage you to look over at JC Wilmore's blog, The Richmond Democrat and here at Raising Kaine for an emerging body of information on this topic. The truth about Miller is coming out; he can't smother the truth as he has done in Congress.

Harris Miller is not a "democrat". He is a member of the "Party of Davos" -- the global elite of monied interests who support global labor arbitrage and declining standards of living for everyone except the wealthy and powerful few. See for example,

I cannot find a dimes worth of difference between Harris Miller and a Republican proponent of outsourcing and free trade (i.e., "global labor arbitrage").

In fact, I would say that Harris Miller has done greater injury to American workers and the U.S. economy than George Allen. (What a sickening commentary on Miller and the people who have endorsed him.)

Harris Miller is not a good democrat. He's a liar and a hypocrite. The people who support him are either ill-informed or complete cynics unworthy of being called "democrats".

one example

one example among many

a second example among many

I saw the sleezy way that Harris Miller got this bill through congress too, but I can't find a link to that at the moment.  Perhaps you can assist?

Miller supporters... consider carefully before you support this man.  I had no real opinion whatsoever about the man until he started launching misleading attacks on James Webb.  No having researched him, I see even more clearly why we Miller has no place being our nominee in November.

ITAA's Job Dream
http://www.computerworld.com/printthis/2004/0,4814,91892,00.html

Opinion by Frank Hayes 

APRIL 05, 2004 (COMPUTERWORLD) - Here's a comforting bedtime story: Offshoring won't just save companies money. It will also create jobs. And reduce inflation. And grow the economy. Those are the top-line conclusions of a new report from the Information Technology Association of America, the IT vendors' lobbying group.

Just don't read very far past that top line -- at least, not if you want to get any sleep tonight.

See, the report says those new jobs won't be IT jobs. And that reduced inflation will come in part from lower pay -- "wage compression," as it's charmingly dubbed by the report's principal author, Global Insight Inc. chief economist Nariman Behravesh.

And that economic growth depends on the willingness of the foreign employees who get our offshored jobs to spend their paychecks on U.S.-made exports.

Don't take my word for it. It's all in the report, brought to you by the people who, just a few years ago, were saying that the U.S. desperately needed to increase its IT workforce. Yes, really. Since early 2000, the ITAA has predicted the creation of more than 4 million new U.S. IT jobs -- 1.8 million of which would go begging because there just wouldn't be enough IT people to fill them.

How many new U.S. IT jobs have actually been created since 2000? According to the ITAA's own annual jobs report, maybe 400,000.

But wait -- according to this new report, since the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, a total of 372,000 software and IT services jobs have been lost in the U.S. (Only 104,000 were lost to offshoring; the rest went because of the recession, productivity gains and an end to what the report calls "overhiring.")

The new report also predicts that "in the software and services area, the economy will create 516,000 jobs over the next five years in an environment with global sourcing but only 490,000 without it. Of these 516,000 new jobs, 272,000 will go offshore and 244,000 will remain onshore. Thus the U.S. IT workforce will continue to grow."

So, let's do the math: Without offshoring, the U.S. gets 490,000 new IT jobs in the next five years, a net increase since 2000 of 118,000 U.S. IT jobs. With offshoring, the U.S. gets 244,000 new IT jobs -- a net loss since 2000 of 128,000 U.S. IT jobs. Some growth, eh?

Yes, there will be new jobs -- in education, health services, transportation, utilities and construction, all areas where the work can't easily be shipped overseas. They just won't be jobs in IT.

At least that's what the ITAA's offshoring report says. Is it true? Well, remember that this report is driven by politics every bit as much as the ITAA's wildly optimistic job-growth estimates of a few years ago.

Back then, the ITAA was lobbying for more H-1B visas, and its jobs survey miraculously showed a spectacular increase in the number of U.S. IT job openings about to be created. Now the ITAA is lobbying against restrictions on offshoring. And, amazingly, its new report concludes that offshoring will do everything but whiten teeth and freshen breath.

So if you're a techie, you may be able to sleep a little easier. After all, you already know what you need to do in order to dodge the offshoring bullet: build up your business skills, increase your face time with users and generally become the kind of IT person whose job can't easily be shipped overseas.

And if you're an IT manager or CIO? Then it's not so easy. See, some people will take this report seriously. Like your best techies, who may decide to bail out of a shrinking IT job market. Or the brightest students, who may conclude that IT is a dead end and opt for business or law or medicine instead.

That could leave you with the loss of your best people and not enough new kids coming in to replace them -- a staffing nightmare, courtesy of the ITAA's fumbled efforts to hype the benefits of offshoring.

Pleasant dreams.

Frank Hayes, Computerworld's senior news columnist, has covered IT for more than 20 years. Contact him at frank_hayes@computerworld.com.

-quote attributed to ????

If we all insisted on having a perfect candidate, there would be as many candidates as voters. - me

The death penalty is not a deterrent.  Nobody has ever shown that it is.

The death penalty is completely racist.  Blacks are disproportionately sentenced to death, as they are to prison. But while a prison term can be shortend or changed with appeals and evidence, a death sentence is permanent and there are mistakes.

It's much more expensive to kill someone than to keep them in prison for life.  We can't do without the appeals, but they are a million dollar mandatory part of the Death penalty process.

The death penalty is all about vengence.  An eye for an eye makes the world blind.  If my wife or child were killed I'd want vengence, but justice is greater than my anger.  The greeks knew this 2500 years ago, even after Christ we haven't learned it.

Dan, we disagree on this point, although I agree with you on all the others you list.  I'm not about to denounce you as a fake Dem or try to run you out of town.  You play Fullback and I'll play Safety... the politics of the Democratic party team sport.  It's a team that must rise up to defeat Bushism and Conservatism in this country as they stive towards Aristocracy and a permanent lower class.

No matter how far apart we are, we're all in this together.

Mr. Miller has spent his recent professional life and made his money by representing and pushing for everything the new globalization feudal corporate elite wants. He campaigns like a Republican, using typical smear tactics, misquotes, partial quotes lifted from context (scouring the record back for many years), and outright falsehoods. He seems to be extremely well financed, both by his big business contacts and his own money. He never, to my knowlege, served in combat in wartime, just made money off the war. And so on. Doesn't that sound Republican to you?

Listening to his sound bite aphorisms and slick, knowing hitting of all the traditional Democratic hot buttons, with never a new thought of his own, I can only conclude Mr. Harris is a mile wide and an inch deep. And it's been a while, I have heard, since he actually actively worked his shoe leather for Democratic candidates, simply showing up at this late date to get his ticket punched.

I am a realist, however. Even though Mr. Miller appears to have forgot that the real enemy here is George Allen, not James Webb, I have not. Even though most observers concede that Harris Miller has a gnat's chance in hell of beating Allen, if he gets the nomination by hook or by crook, I will vote for him in November. But actively support him, put my heart into the campaign? Well... we'll see.

Anyone who goes this negative in a primary race, while not even bothering to mention any positive qualities about himself, you have to wonder about.  Anyone who would distort a primary opponent's record like Miller has, I have to wonder about.  I'd expect all that and more in a general election, but this primary is rapidly making the Duckworth-Cegelis flare-up in DuPage County, IL look like a minor dustup.

If Miller can't give a good, positive reason for his candidacy, what's he doing running?  I guess maybe he's panicking, since he thought he'd get this nomination unopposed.  But when even your supporters start to worry that you've gone too negative, it's time to re-evaluate your strategy.

It's not to late to step back from the abyss, Harris.  Stop the mudslinging, and campaign like a civilized human being.  I know people in panicked states can do things they later regret, and I'm willing to forgive you if you step back stop the smears.

Sean Kindler

One of my major points is that Miller has gone so far that a life-long Democrat, such as myself, is hesitant to support him over a Republican I detest.

I think it shows such a low level of pride and integrity for Harris Miller to stand behind others while they misrepresent the Webb record, that I just can't even work up a lukewarm liking for the man.  Sure, in November I'll go and pull the lever for Miller, but it won't be a vote for change, it won't be a vote for the future, it won't be a vote for a better Virginia, it'll be a vote for everything that's wrong with the Democratic party.  In short, it'll be a vote for a permanent Democratic minority. 

Every vote for Webb is truly a vote for a progressive majority and a vote to reclaim greatness for the Democratic party and for America.

"During the late 1990s, the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), whose members include the major US technology companies and the India outsourcing companies, lobbied both Congressional Democrats and Republicans with high campaign contributions to raise the H-1B cap to 195,000 workers annually. They succeeded once in 1998 to raise the cap temporarily to 115,000, but that wasn't enough for ITAA. They lobbied again in 2000 and the following is what happened.

On Tuesday, October 3, 2000, at 3:45 PM, a House of Representatives clerk announced the Senate passage of S. 2045. An act to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to H-1B nonimmigrant aliens (ironically named the "American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000"). Immediately following, the Speaker pro tempore announced that she would postpone further proceedings on the remaining motions and that any record votes on postponed questions would be taken on October 4th.

On the evening of October 3rd, a presidential debate between Bush and Gore was occurring and the majority of Representatives, as well as the press, were preparing for the debate. As it had been announced that no further votes would be taken, most Representatives left.

But at around 5:30 PM an email was sent announcing that an H-1B debate would begin shortly. Major supporters of the increased H-1B cap came to the House for the vote. Only approximately 40 out of the 435 members were present.

A bit prior to 6:30 PM, Cannon (R-UT) made a motion to suspend the rules and pass Senate bill S2045 (which had been passed that morning) instead of voting on the House bills, one of which (introduced by Smith (R-TX)) included worker protections and had properly gone through the Judiciary committee-however, it was known that the tech companies opposed those worker protections.

There were only two copies of the Senate bill in the House that night, in non-compliance with House Rules. Mr. Cannon had one, the Speaker had the other, although it is interesting to note that the Speaker's copy of S. 2045 that the House clerk read into the congressional record (which is the only knowledge of the bill for the other Representatives there that night) was not the bill that was ultimately enacted. The numbers entered into the record (on page H8699 under "Sec. 2. Temporary Increase in Visa Allotments") were (1) 80,000 for fiscal year 2000; (2) 87,500 for fiscal year 2001; and (3) 130,000 for fiscal year 2002.

The Speaker allotted control of 20 minutes each to Cannon and Conyers (D-MI), leaving little opportunity for debate. Rorabacher (R-CA) stated, "This legislation is nothing more than a betrayal of American working people." Owens (D-NY) said, "What we are doing here is steamrolling through a cap. We will have a cap which amounts to almost 600,000 people over a 3-year period."

Smith (R-TX) was vocal in the issues he had with the Senate bill and his upset with it being railroaded through the House that night by Cannon, Conyers and Lofgren (D-CA). In the record, Smith detailed the polls of the American public that were overwhelmingly against raising the labor importation cap. In addition, he noted, "The goals of preventing abuse of the program and providing efficient services to employers and workers are not being achieved. Evidence suggests that program noncompliance or abuse by employers may be more prevalent than under other laws."

Using various procedural moves, the GOP leaders ended the debate quickly and called for a voice vote, even though the House was nearly empty. Needless to say, the H-1B increase was passed with no vote record, and only Cox News Service reported on it."

Well, does anyone else agree that this was a dirty trick?  Sound in keep with any of the other dirty tricks from Harris Miller we've seen lately?

Although the article is quite lengthy, it really is worth the time to read.

It describes how the "rip and strip" pro-outsourcing and worker replacement policies advocated by people like Miller have caused terrible damage to our economy and our job market.

Dr. Roberts has long criticised the non-immigrant "business" visas pushed by Miller and his corporate business lobby cronies.

Roberts has been attentive to the errosion of jobs for Americans in IT and points out the hard realities of our present situation.

Take a look. I hope that you'll see the relationship between the actions of Harris Miller and the wider impact on our society.

http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2040

The term does not exist in medical practice.  The Republicans MADE IT UP.  Why do you repeat their terminology?

Even if you're using the Republican term to refer to a specific abortion procedure, such as dilation and extraction, I'd just like to know why the hell you think you have any business dictating which procedure my doctor should use to save my life or my health should a pregnancy risk either. 

Isn't that between me and my doctor?  Who are you to interfere?

I believe than any life-saving procedure which requires abortion should be legal, don't get me wrong there.  However, I have my own problems with abortion.  For the most part, I don't care what a woman does with her body.  That's why I consider myself basically pro-choice.  Though I would not condone abortion if anybody asked me, I would not interfere.

Late term abortions, however, are a different case.  At first, I had no problems against it.  However, a Republican friend of mine explained the procedure to me.  I did not believe him.  He sent me to Wikipedia, where he found out about it.  I won't reproduce it here, as the queasy may not be able to handle it, but follw the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction
And look up intact D&X Surgery.  I can't support this in good conscience (except for cases of Life or Death for the mother). 

It's just my opinion.  In the end, I still consider myself pro-choice.  This, in my opinion, goes too far.

Thanks for the debate material, but next time could we refrain from using "hell" so many times?  You may be passionate about this topic, but civility is always a good thing.  Cool.

I don't consider this issue just a simple exercise in forensics.  I'm sorry if saying "hell" makes me seem uncivil, but this is more than just an academic debate for me.  We're talking about the government interfering in something between me and my doctor, something that could possibly have a long-term negative impact on my health (my fertility, loss of organs, long term cognitive impairment) or even my life.

A friend of mine had the intact D&X procedure because of a medical emergency in pregnancy with two very loved, very wanted twin boys in the late second trimester.  One twin had already died in utero.  My friend had developed potentially life-threatening pre-eclampsia.  The second twin could not be carried to full-term (my friend would have died) and was not viable. 

Her doctor felt that intact D&X was the best procedure to save both her life and her health.  She was INCREDIBLY LUCKY to have been rushed to a hospital that just happened to have one of the very few practitioners who was trained in this procedure and was willing to perform it. 

Now, you might say that this was an acceptable use of the procedure because most doctors would agree that my friend's life was at risk.  But some might have said that her life was safe, but that another procedure which took longer (or inducing labor) would have been acceptable even though she might have had to have a hysterectomy or she might have had loss of brain function.  At least her LIFE was saved, if not her health, right?

The problem is, "health" is arguable.  It's up to a doctor - in the moment - to decide what procedure is best for the patient.  When you BAN one particular type of procedure, what good does it do except limit a doctor's options during an emergency?

No one performs D&X's for fun.  And I completely reject the right-wing myth that they should be banned because there are heartless women out there blithely having D&X's in their 9th month because their dresses won't fit. These procedures are VERY VERY VERY rare for good reason.  Politicians have no business second-guessing when they should be used.

(I managed to say that without "hell" this time!)  :-)  Thanks for listening.

I am not at all surprised by DanG's posting. He expresses the sort of independence of thought -- critical thinking --which has made the U.S. a great democracy.

This doesn't mean I agree with his opinions on any or all of the issues he ticked off as examples; it means that he shouldn't have to rigidly adhere to positions made by "party leaders" or elected officeholders.

Miller is exploiting the sort of "no dissent permitted" tone which has become the accepted norm in the Democratic Party hierarchy. Miller has sought to destroy Webb through surrogates attacking on various issues on which he himself has not left any "paper trail". Rather than deal with the context and reasoning behind Webb's comments, Miller sees them as an opportunity to destroy Webb's character and credibiliy before groups of people unwilling to tolerate any dissent or critical examination -- the hallmarks of intellectual greatness, statecraft, inspired leadership, and progressive reform.

Has Miller accurately pegged much of the Democratic Party leadership as "reactionary" -- unable and unwilling to deal with the challenge of new ideas and new issues?

Some have called Miller's attacks on Webb "swift-boating" -- an apt characterisation, I think. Really, this sort of ruthless manipulative war by proxy is quite in keeping with Miller's eduation in political science, his experience in fabricating mythical labor shortages for the press, and cutting deals and ramming through unpopular elitist legislation as a political insider and corporate lobbyist.

The damage that has been done to the Democratic Party is, in part, due to the presence of conscienceless business shills like Miller who stab American workers in the back and ally themselves with wealthy elites while claiming to be "Democrats". Watch the neo-liberal "free traders" react when anyone suggests that outsourcing may be injurious to the American economy and the working and middle classes.

Well, I guess I'm a "small-d" democrat who thinks that the word is tied to a set of real principles including the freedom to express dissent and offer alternative views in an atmosphere of free speech in which debate is considered healthy rather than a sign of moral depravity.

But just a couple things:  On a strictly PR note, you should stop talking about what you'll do if Miller wins the primary.  You should only talk about what'll happen when Webb wins.  Not what I want to happen, but thats the way you should present any arguments.  Just sayin'

And two, please, please, please don't start some crazy campaign to write in Webb's name if Miller wins.  Democrats need all the help they can get, don't get all petty and try to get as many people as you can to either sit it out or waste their vote.  It'll only help George Allen.  And say whatever you will against Miller, Allen is ten times worse. 

Otherwise, interesting piece. 

I'm still convinced that Webb will win the primary.  However, unlike earlier this month, I now have a contingency plan.  A will be voting for Jim Webb, a man of honor and leadership, regardless.  Everybody should do what they think is best.  A vote is a truly personal thing.  Actually think about it.