It is about time labor unions knew about the head honcho for outsourcing US jobs for personal gain, Harris Miller. The more people learn about Miller and the irreparable harm he's done to many valuable Tech jobs and to the IT Industry, the more they shun his candidacy.

rjl, is this what you could pull as a paid Miller staffer? Please. You guys are getting really desperate by the hour as Miller is getting almost universal unfavorable opinions from people.

And for the record, you haven't refuted one bit of the facts against Miller. You call them attacks. Well, they are facts in the real world where outsourcing of US jobs has been a REAL concern for many US workers.

and I see you haven't even addressed the issue raised, which was about "outsourcing of US jobs." 

I have never met Miller, much less worked for him.  I do, however, know equity as well as blind allegience. 

Enjoy the campaign experience.

There's no issue to address rjl. You see a huge indisputable mountain in front of Miller, and you turn a blind eye? Yeah, that's real blind allegiance.

Say hi to Outsourcer-in-Chief, Harris Miller.

1. Harris Miller - Serial Outsourcer
2. Harris Miller - No friend of working families
3. Harris Miller - Personal Gain before American jobs. Always.
4. Harris Miller - Cheap labor is my business
5. Harris Miller - I have never heard of outsourcing

Add your own -

6. Harris Miller - Gave money to Dennis Hastert.
7. Harris Miller - Gave money to Spencer Abraham AND urged his reelection
8. Harris Miller - Thinks extending Bush's tax cuts is a "great idea."
9. Harris Miller - Strongly supported invading Iraq
10. Harris Miller - Opposed voter verified audit trails and lobbied for Diebold!
11. Harris Miller - Had fewer people in Richmond and George Mason combined than Jim Webb had in Gate City for his announcement tour!
12. Harris Miller - Said that he could relate to people in SWVA because he's from Appalachia!
13. Harris Miller - Lied to people and said that Jim Webb told him he wasn't running for Senate.
14. Harris Miller - Had surrogates accuse Webb of being racists (!!!)
15. Harris Miller - Had surrogates accuse Webb of being a misogynist (!!!)
16. Harris Miller - Has nothing positive to say so he has his supporters constantly trying to tear down an American hero
17. Harris Miller - We could go on and on, but you get the point.

rjl:

You attempt to compare apples and oranges. 

"Webb Promoted U.S. Businesses to Viet Nam Before Trade Agreement "?  So what?  Lots of Americans did.  Viet Nam needed American trade and American investment to rebuild.  What Webb did cannot be compared to harris Miller's premeditated attack on an entire sector of the American working class.  Miller, at the behest of his corporate masters, created a plan to double (or triple) the number of H1-B visas for the tech sector specifically so tech unions and tech workers could be broken.  How then sir, do you compare Webb's attempts to encourage American investment in Viet Nam's stunted economy with Miller's attack on American workers?

Let's keep in mind too that Jim Webb has a certain amount of history with Viet Nam: 
Webb fought a war and won several medals in Viet Nam. 
Webb was so badly wounded in Viet Nam that it ended his career in the Marines. 
Webb lost friends killed in action in Viet Nam. 
Webb has since made many emotionally charged visits back to Viet Nam. 
Webb speaks Vietnamese. 
Webb is married to a woman of Vietnamese ancestry.

Now lets compare Harris Miller:

Did Harris Miller fight a war in India?  No.
Did he win any medals in China? No.
Did he lose any friends in battle in Taiwan? Nope.
Does Miller speak Chinese, Russian, or any of the hundreds of languages spoken in the Indian subcontinent (apart from English)?  Uh, no.
Is he married to . . . oh, skip it.

So really, Miller has no particular tie to any of these countries other than the fact that he was sent there to work on outsourcing and insourcing American jobs to please his masters and line his pockets.

Any more questions?

Any further questions?  Here's one:  why would anyone in their right mind f*** with Jim Webb or JC Wilmore? Ha.

all the baffle-gab about outsourcing is just that.

Because outsourcing is oursourcing, whether done by Jim Webb or Miller's "masters," and regardless whether one has any ties whatsoever to a country or region.  It's binary.

The issue in your aruments is unions.  Fair enough.

So what, then, is Mr. Webb's position on H-1B visas?  Specifically, how would he have voted in the Senate on the recent immigration bill with the H-1B provisions? Is it OK to "insource" IT workers from Viet Nam rather than India?  How many?

This is not about apples and oranges.  It's about hypocracy as expressed daily on this and a few other sites.

So why not ask Jim Webb when you see him in Richmond.  The Jim Webb I knew in the late '80s was not a hypocrite;  he'll give you a straight answer.

Which is more than I can say for the comments on this blog.

Freudian slip???

Simply NOT GOOD ENOUGH is the perfect description and catch phrase for Harris Miller. He is a Lobby-ist . He's running for high office but resorts to lowly campaign smear tactics.  He isn't running on his record of Public Service... there is none ... other than to say (as a connected name dropper) he's supported (given money) various candidates. Tends not to mention the lobby money that went to Republicans ...

If you don't know it already that is standard practice amongst lobbying firms. You're buying influence ... who's for sale??  What's the price of admissions. If he was saving whales perhaps he'd be entitled to a blind eye ... but that is not the case. With his record of "service" (or disservice to U.S. Technology workers) he's not even a good place holder candidate. There are far better people than Harris Miller running for your local school board ...

The daily attacks on Miller on occasion may be a bit over the top .... or over done ... on the other hand more comes to light on what really has gone on in Harris Miller's lobbying days. Coupled with the fact that he uses surrogates to attack his opponent (ala karl rove) while he's "above that kind of thing" is Bush League hypocrisy in action ... really a form of cowardice. But you're right let's leave Harris Miller alone ... alone with his staffers and campaign crowds of two or three curiosity seekers.

rjl:

You have showed your hand. 

What you are trying to put forward is a kind of argument known as a "Black and White Fallacy." You offer only two choices. You suggest that either all foreign trade is good, or all foreign trade is bad.  If all foreign trade is good, then what Harris Miller did was okay.  If all foreign trade is bad, then what Jim Webb did was wrong.

Your reasoning is weak, if indeed you can call it reasoning.  I call it a poor attempt at propaganda. You will have to stay up very late indeed to fool this old rabbit.

Obviously not all foreign trade is bad.  If pursued in a way that is fair to all Americans, foreign trade can enrich our economy and our lives, as well as the economies and lives of our trading partners.  On the other hand, if foreign trade is pursued in such a way as to benefit a small sliver of our society at the expense of a much larger group of Americans, than clearly this is not a good policy for our nation to pursue. This is what Harris Miller did when he sold out American high tech workers.

What Harris Miller did was irresponsible, aimed only at maximizing profits for himself and his clients in the short term at the cost of damaging the American high tech sector in the long term and pauperizing millions of American workers in the process. 

Jim Webb's attempts to foster trade between the United States and Viet Nam as a way of healing old wounds and restoring at least in part some of the damage we did to that country exist in a moral universe that is far removed from Miller's grubby machinations. For you to suggest otherwise points to a lack of insight or a lack of objectivity. 

Given the very sophisticated way you expressed yourself in your original post, I cannot believe that it is the result of a lack of insight.  You expressed your flawed reasoning with skill, employing an argument that was seductive, though fallacious.  I must therefore conclude that you are in fact a partisan of Mr. Miller's offering an apologia for his truly atrocious and mercenary behavior.  To this sir, I can have but one response, to whit:

Boo ya!

Yours, etc. etc.

--J.C.

...and if it weren't so late, I would enjoy continuing. Perhaps tomorrow?  We're both old rabbits up a bit past time.

I doubt we shall ever agree, but I do enjoy your writing if not your reasoning.

With every good wish, I remain

Sincerely,
RJL

When J.C. whips out a boo ya, you know the argument is over.  Period.

Morning, JC:

It's good that we have shown our hands, don't you think?  So let us get our stipulations out of the way.

I will stipulate that I am a free-trader Democratic with a low tolerance for hypocrisy or disinformation in political debate (which should imply a low tolerance for political debate at all, but such is the beast).  I am not, however, associated with the Miller campaign, nor do I know Harris Miller.

I assume, from reading your blog, that you are a labor Democrat and a Webb partisan; but I will leave that to you.

The issues I raised in the original post are hypocrisy and over-playing an issue that defies a simple (and, thus, marketable politically) answer/message.  These issues are now in play in the campaign.  Mud Cat's ambush of Miller in Roanoke gave them potential front burner status.  Pursue them at Webb's (and potentially the party's) risk.

Here's why:

You argue (1) that "what Webb did cannot be compared" to what you state Miller did; (2) that, in any event, promoting the movement of U.S. business to offshore operations in Viet Nam is noble and exists in a higher "moral universe;" (3) that "If pursued in a way that is fair to all Americans, foreign trade can enrich our economy and out lives...;" (4) that, should any of those arguments fail, Miller is evil nonetheless; and (5) that any challenge to your position must come from a Miller partisan with offerings of apologia which would, in your opinion, either negate the argument or be simply offensive.

1.  Your acknowledgement of “what Webb didâ€Â� is noted. 

2.  Your acknowledgement that Miller acted “at the behest of his corporate mastersâ€Â� is noted.  I presume you refer here to the ITAA, an industry trade association, of which Miller was its paid Chief Executive and subject to the professional guidelines and certifications of the American Society of Association Executives.  In such capacity anyone, including Miller, is obligated to implement the programs and initiatives of the Association, specifically included lobbying for and pursuing objectives in public policy.  This obligation is true of industry groups, labor, and other such organizations.  To say that an association executive should not vigorously pursue his/her organization’s objectives before the government and court of public opinion because you believe (rightly or wrongly) that those objectives are foul is to say that attorneys should not represent those accused of heinous crimes.  Associations are not the decider or tier of fact or law.  They are advocates.  Your ire should be directed at Congress, including the majority of Democrats who have supported such initiatives over the years.  Which is also why you should ask Jim Webb his positions on the current Senate provisions for H-1B visa caps and fees. 

3.  I agree, probably as a Viet Nam veteran and probably for different reasons than you, that promoting U.S. business operations in Viet Nam is a good and “moralâ€Â� act.  Where we disagree is whether such morality automatically elevates it to something other than direct foreign investment, creating jobs there versus here, or outsourcing.  It is what it is and, as I said in the original post, I don’t fault Jim Webb for it.

4.  Your acknowledgement that international trade and investment is best done on a clear basis with governing principles in noted.  This is why the U.S. establishes bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, which require the approval of Congress.  “(W)hat Webb didâ€Â� was prior to any such bilateral agreement, and you must conclude that the business venture was without the very clarity and governing principles that you state are required for trade to be “fair.â€Â�  Thus, was Webb’s business venture in 1994 “noble tradeâ€Â� or “fair trade?â€Â�

5.  Your arguments fail on presentation but underscore your entitlement to your opinion that Miller is evil nonetheless. 

6.  As stated earlier, I am not a Miller partisan.  And challenging or exposing the weaknesses in the daily disinformation on trade issues is not an apology from anyone.

Despite your disdain for Miller, is the trade/outsourcing/jobs issue really your desideratum for expressing your support for Webb?  Has Mud Cut overplayed?  I note an interesting post on Virginia Centrist that this issue is now boring if not dangerous.

My original post was that this is an issue that can cut, deeply, both ways.  And I say, again, that it is simply not good enough to just say one candidate’s “potâ€Â� is blacker than my candidate’s “kettleâ€Â� if you are genuinely concerned about outsourcing, direct foreign investment, H-1B visas, or the fact that the world is becoming flat, or if you really intend to retire George Allen.

In respect for your thoughtful presentations, I will leave this now for your counter without any rejoinder by me.  Or, as my least-favorite Worst Person in the World would say “I’ll give you the last word.â€Â�

I'm glad that you laid your cards on the table rjl.

Alice Marshall tried that line of attack on me in a thread at GOTV several weeks ago...

Investment in Vietnam does not indicate anything more than that -- investment in Vietnam.

The issue of offshore outsourcing (labor arbitrage) arises when firms layoff Americans and shift operations offshore -- whether industrial or services. Or, even more insidiously these days, skip the U.S. entirely and establish newly created work offshore (as is now beginning in biotechnology).

Moving production/service work offshore means that a condition of labor arbitrage is in place. My posting today here and at The Modern Patriot quotes economist Paul Craig Roberts observations on the wider situation.

Roberts quotes former TCI and Global Crossing CEO Leo Hindery as saying "No economy can survive the offshoring of both manufacturing and services concurrently." I agree.

PCR says: "According to Hindery, offshoring serves the short-term interests of shareholders and executive pay at the long-term expense of US economic strength." I agree.

You sir, are aligned with the short-term interests of shareholders and executives and against the long-term intersts of U.S. economic strength. You are also aligned against the interests of the broad American middle class -- union and non-union alike.

BTW, Intel is one of the leading users of H-1b visas in the U.S. They actively recruit non-Americans in preference to Americans and pay them below the prevailing U.S. wages for similar work. I'm not at all surprised that Intel is establishing a plant in Vietnam. Intel has long been at the forefront of outsourcing and worker replacement programs.

The fact that you cite Intel isn't shocking; Tom Kalil is a former Intel exec. He kicked in at the Miller fundraiser in Santa Clara (See "Outsourcing Lobby funds Harris Miller" at http://modernpatriot.blogspot.com/2006/04/outsourcing-lobby-funds-harris-miller.html)

Yes, I've met pro-outsourcing Democrats before in 2004 when you/they undermined all attempts to make outsourcing a real issue. As much as any other factor, this is what probably cost Kerry Ohio. "I will not pander..."

"Neo-liberals"...
"Free trade" Democrats...
The Party of Davos (offshore outsourcing)...

Members of the international financial elite who use and discard workers as nothing more than disposable commodities.

Not really different at all from Republicans on economic matters.

People like James Webb really scare you -- genuine populist Democrats who will not just look the other way while the American middle class is shafted.

for whatever it is that you have just spewn.  Your semi-Marxist sort-of persona is only of curiosity the first time posted.  Upon repeat, the obviousness of your nugatory knowledge, and your inability to "get the point," of this subject is irritating.

But I have a moment between conference calls with Davos. Let's shred your position.

You say:

"Investment in Vietnam does not indicate anything more than that -- investment in Vietnam.  The issue of offshore outsourcing (labor arbitrage) arises when firms layoff Americans and shift operations offshore -- whether industrial or services. Or, even more insidiously these days, skip the U.S. entirely and establish newly created work offshore (as is now beginning in biotechnology)."

Now, go back and read the interview again at the link at the top of the page.  Maybe even read JC's posts.  Why not mine, too.

Can you connect the dots?  Can you see what it is we have been discussing/debating?  What did you think Webb and others were/are doing by "investing" in Viet Nam?  Giving money to the communist party and hoping for a return?

Direct foreign investment by U.S. companies in another country is about either moving to or opening a new operation in that country.  Sort of like "skip the U.S. entirely and establish newly created work offshore" as you say.  You describe this as "insidious."  If so, speak with Jim Webb who had a consulting business in 1994 to do just that.  I, on the other hand, applaud him.

The debate on this thread has been about political and other aspects of this issue, which assumes a base of knowledge and understanding on which to rest your arguments.

Your reaction is the sort I've come to expect from the people who profit from the elimination of middle class American jobs. I've crossed swords with your ilk on numerous occasions.

I'm well aware of what you are arguing (as you know but choose to deny). I get "the point". I followed the discussion very closely and see how you are attempting to confuse "investment" with "outsourcing" and thereby tar James Webb. You argue the worst possible case -- that Jim Webb was acting to advance investment -- offshore outsourcing and is therefore no different than Miller.

It's an interesting tactic attempted previously but less effectively by Alice Marshall. You'll have to struggle harder to pull the outsourcing albatross from Miller's neck. There's no moral equivalency or business similarity between Miller and Webb. I shall not repeat J.C.'s wonderful line of argument; there's no need.

Opening a "new operation" in Vietnam is not by itself evil if the objective is not labor arbitrage (worker replacement). Unless you can show that Webb faciliated offshoring or supports worker replacement, your arguments are going nowhere.

Proponents of offshore outsourcing and worker replacement programs have proven exceptionally able at twisting journalists, editorial boards, and politicians into pretzels when they talk about trade and the need for "skilled workers" but they have a tougher time here. (I'm sure this is frustrating but don't expect it to change.)

Your accusation of "Marxism" is quite amusing. The irony is that the greed of pro-outsourcing factions is what brings class warfare to the fore in politics. Rather that spending time with Das Kapital, you will find it more fruitful to read the Federalist Papers. You and the other pro-outsourcing proponents are in there under "faction".

In conclusion, I will quote JC Wilmore:
"Your reasoning is weak, if indeed you can call it reasoning.  I call it a poor attempt at propaganda."

with breathless anticipation for your uniting of the proletariat.