SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : John EDWARDS for President -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (427)2/21/2004 10:33:13 PM
From: Ann Corrigan  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1381
 
Lizzie, That's great news about GE. That Co was one of first to start massive jobs outsourcing; hopefully, shareholders will stem the tide.

Edwards will appear tomorrow morning on ABC's "This Week".

Tonight's Tim Russert show was all about primary campaign.
All 3 panelists agreed that Edwards is the more articulate Dem candidate. They said the difference in Edwards more energetic style & Kerry's stiffness was apparent in last debate. Russert commented that Kerry always reverts to a more aloof personality when he starts to feel over-confident & reporters feel that has happened in past few days. I was happy to see another debate is planned in NY besides the one on Thurs in CA:



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (427)2/22/2004 6:42:07 AM
From: Raymond Duray  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1381
 
Lest anyone forget, John Edwards voted to send men to die and be maimed in an effort to destroy and damage innocent lives in Iraq:

The Ultimate Betrayal
by Howard Zinn

I cannot get out of my mind the photo that appeared on the front page of The New York Times on December 30, alongside a story by Jeffrey Gettleman. It showed a young man sitting on a chair facing a class of sixth graders in Blairsville, Pennsylvania. Next to him was a woman. Not the teacher of the class, but the young fellow's mother. She was there to help him because he is blind.

That was Jeremy Feldbusch, twenty-four years old, a sergeant in the Army Rangers, who was guarding a dam along the Euphrates River on April 3 when a shell exploded 100 feet away, and shrapnel tore into his face. When he came out of a coma in an Army Medical Center five weeks later, he could not see. Two weeks later, he was awarded a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star, but he still could not see. His father, sitting at his bedside, said: "Maybe God thought you had seen enough killing."

The newspapers on December 30 reported that 477 American GIs had died in the war. But what is not usually reported is that for every death there are four or five men and women seriously wounded.

The term "seriously wounded" does not begin to convey the horror. Sergeant Feldbusch's mother, Charlene Feldbusch, who, along with his father, virtually lived at his bedside for two months, one day saw a young woman soldier crawling past her in the corridor. She had no legs, and her three-year-old son was trailing behind.

She started to cry. Later she told Gettleman, "Do you know how many times I walked up and down those hallways and saw those people without arms or legs and thought: Why couldn't this be my son? Why his eyes?"

George Bush was eager to send young men and women half a world away into the heart of another nation. And even though they had fearsome weapons, they were still vulnerable to guerrilla attacks that have left so many of them blinded and crippled. Is this not the ultimate betrayal of our young by our government?

Their families very often understand this before their sons and daughters do, and remonstrate with them before they go off. Ruth Aitken did so with her son, an Army captain, telling him it was a war for oil, while he insisted he was protecting the country from terrorists. He was killed on April 4, in a battle around Baghdad airport. "He was doing his job," his mother said. "But it makes me mad that this whole war was sold to the American public and to the soldiers as something it wasn't."

One father, in Escondido, California, Fernando Suarez del Solar, told reporters that his son, a lance corporal in the Marines, had died for "Bush's oil." Another father in Baltimore, whose son, Kendall Waters-Bey, a staff sergeant in the Marine Corps, was killed, held up a photo of his son for the news cameras, and said: "President Bush, you took my only son away from me."

Of course, they and their families are not the only ones betrayed. The Iraqi people, promised freedom from tyranny, saw their country, already devastated by two wars and twelve years of sanctions, were attacked by the most powerful military machine in history. The Pentagon proudly announced a campaign of "shock and awe," which left 10,000 or more Iraqi men, women, and children, dead, and many thousands more maimed.

The list of betrayals is long. This government has betrayed the hopes of the world for peace. After fifty million died in the Second World War, the United Nations was set up, as its charter promised, "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war."

The people of the United States have been betrayed, because with the Cold War over and "the threat of communism" no longer able to justify the stealing of trillions of the public's tax dollars for the military budget, that theft of the national wealth continues. It continues at the expense of the sick, the children, the elderly, the homeless, the unemployed, wiping out the expectations after the fall of the Soviet Union that there would be a "peace dividend" to bring prosperity to all.

And yes, we come back to the ultimate betrayal, the betrayal of the young, sent to war with grandiose promises and lying words about freedom and democracy, about duty and patriotism. We are not historically literate enough to remember that these promises, those lies, started far back in the country's past.

Young men--boys, in fact (for the armies of the world, including ours, have always been made up of boys)--were enticed into the Revolutionary Army of the Founding Fathers by the grand words of the Declaration of Independence. But they found themselves mistreated, in rags and without boots, while their officers lived in luxury and merchants were making war profits. Thousands mutinied, and some were executed by order of General Washington. When, after the war, farmers in Western Massachusetts, many of them veterans, rebelled against the foreclosures of their farms, they were put down by armed force.

It is a long story, the betrayal of the very ones sent to kill and die in wars. When soldiers realize this, they rebel. Thousands deserted in the Mexican War, and in the Civil War there was deep resentment that the rich could buy their way out of service, and that financiers like J. P. Morgan were profiting as the bodies piled up on the battlefields. The black soldiers who joined the Union Army and were decisive in the victory came home to poverty and racism.

The returning soldiers of World War I, many of them crippled and shell-shocked, were hit hard, barely a dozen years after the end of the war, by the Depression. Unemployed, their families hungry, they descended on Washington, 20,000 of them from every part of the country, set up tents across the Potomac from the capital, and demanded that Congress pay the bonus it had promised. Instead, the army was called out, and they were fired on, tear-gassed, dispersed.

Perhaps it was to wipe out that ugly memory, or perhaps it was the glow accompanying the great victory over fascism, but the veterans of World War II received a GI Bill of Rights--free college education, low interest home mortgages, life insurance.

The Vietnam War veterans, on the other hand, came home to find that the same government that had sent them into an immoral and fruitless war, leaving so many of them wounded in body and mind, now wanted to forget about them. The United States had sprayed huge parts of Vietnam with the chemical defoliant Agent Orange, resulting for the Vietnamese in hundreds of thousands of deaths, lingering cancers, birth defects. American GIs were also exposed in great numbers, and tens of thousands, pointing to sickness, to birth defects in their children, asked the Veterans Administration for help. But the government denied responsibility. However, a suit against Dow Chemical, which made the defoliant, was settled out of court for $180 million, with each family receiving $1,000, which suggests that more than 100,000 families claimed injuries from the spraying.

As the government pours hundreds of billions into war, it has no money to take care of the Vietnam veterans who are homeless, who linger in VA hospitals, who suffer from mental disorders, and who commit suicide in shocking numbers. It is a bitter legacy.

The United States government was proud that, although perhaps 100,000 Iraqis had died in the Gulf War of 1991, there were only 148 American battle casualties. What it has concealed from the public is that 206,000 veterans of that war filed claims with the Veterans Administration for injuries and illnesses. In the dozen or so years since that war, 8,300 veterans have died, and 160,000 claims for disability have been recognized by the VA.

The betrayal of GIs and veterans continues in the so-called war on terrorism. The promises that the U.S. military would be greeted with flowers as liberators have disintegrated as soldiers die every day in a deadly guerrilla warfare that tells the GIs they are not wanted in Iraq. An article last July in The Christian Science Monitor quotes an officer in the 3rd Infantry Division in Iraq as saying: "Make no mistake, the level of morale for most soldiers that I've seen has hit rock bottom."

And those who come back alive, but blind or without arms or legs, find that the Bush Administration is cutting funds for veterans. Bush's State of the Union address, while going through the usual motions of thanking those serving in Iraq, continued his policy of ignoring the fact that thousands have come back wounded, in a war that is becoming increasingly unpopular.

The quick Thanksgiving visit of Bush to Iraq, much ballyhooed in the press, was seen differently by an army nurse in Landstuhl, Germany, where casualties from the war are treated. She sent out an e-mail: "My 'Bush Thanksgiving' was a little different. I spent it at the hospital taking care of a young West Point lieutenant wounded in Iraq. . . . When he pressed his fists into his eyes and rocked his head back and forth he looked like a little boy. They all do, all nineteen on the ward that day, some missing limbs, eyes, or worse. . . . It's too bad Bush didn't add us to his holiday agenda. The men said the same, but you'll never read that in the paper."

As for Jeremy Feldbusch, blinded in the war, his hometown of Blairsville, an old coal mining town of 3,600, held a parade for him, and the mayor honored him. I thought of the blinded, armless, legless soldier in Dalton Trumbo's novel Johnny Got His Gun, who, lying on his hospital cot, unable to speak or hear, remembers when his hometown gave him a send-off, with speeches about fighting for liberty and democracy. He finally learns how to communicate, by tapping Morse Code letters with his head, and asks the authorities to take him to schoolrooms everywhere, to show the children what war is like. But they do not respond. "In one terrible moment he saw the whole thing," Trumbo writes. "They wanted only to forget him."

In a sense, the novel was asking, and now the returned veterans are asking, that we don't forget.

Howard Zinn, the author of "A People's History of the United States," is a columnist for The Progressive.

commondreams.org



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (427)2/23/2004 8:40:51 AM
From: JakeStraw  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1381
 
Outsourcing Isn't "a Zero-Sum Game"

Tech entrepreneur Marc Andreessen says it's "the story of history" and that new jobs will arise in the U.S. as new industries are born

Marc Andreessen, a cofounder of Netscape Communications, stands squarely in the middle of the offshore-outsourcing debate. The startup he now chairs, Opsware Inc., automates data centers, making it easier for companies to manage operations worldwide -- including offshore activities. At the same time, Opsware is now considering hiring a few people in India to take advantage of talent at lower wages there. Andreessen, an unrepentant believer in entrepreneurial capitalism, thinks new jobs and new industries will emerge in the U.S. that will more than fill the current jobs gap. Advertisement

Andreessen recently discussed his views with BusinessWeek Silicon Valley Bureau Chief Robert D. Hof. Following are edited excerpts of their conversation:

Q: What's driving offshore outsourcing of tech jobs?
A: You can get three or four programmers for the price of one. It starts to change how you think about the economics of your business, either as a software company or as an end user. As a software company, you can cut half your programmers, cut your prices, and your profit margins go up, all at the same time. That's a big deal.

It's also a lot easier to do this than it was three or four years ago. For example, it turns out the killer app for all those global networks that got built is offshoring. Everybody can be on the same network. At that point, you can do everything from routing phone calls to transferring digital images and financial records to doing e-mail, collaboration, and conferencing. Whether the guy is here or in India doesn't really matter that much.

Q: It appears that your company helps pave the way for offshoring.
A: What we do makes offshoring easier. When you're outsourcing something to, say, EDS (EDS ), which uses our software, you're implementing an approach to running large numbers of servers that's much more systematic, visible, and predictable. If it's more systematic and predictable in the U.S. to do that, then you can take those same servers, plop 'em down in Latin America or Eastern Europe or India, and you can run them in the same way.

That's already happening in manufacturing. Factories in China are state-of-the-art. When Intel (INTC ) builds a factory in Western China, it's a highly automated factory just like one in Oregon. So the future is not 800 million unskilled Chinese laborers working in giant industrial factories with lots of smoke coming out the top. The future is factories in China that are just as automated as factories in the U.S.

Q: That would seem to suggest that offshoring could simply be a prelude to automating those jobs out of existence before long.
A: China has lost more manufacturing jobs in the last seven years than the U.S. has -- because its factories are getting more automated and more productive. They've lost jobs to automation.

Historically, lower-value jobs vanish over time. They often move overseas and then vanish as the technology gets more sophisticated. Sometimes jobs even come back. You have Japanese car manufacturers with factories here. Car factories are so highly automated that they might as well put them in the U.S. because that's where the customers are. And they can get the high-skilled labor that can run those highly automated factories.

Q: Does the fact that what your company is doing is enabling jobs to move offshore bother you?
A: No. I firmly believe that new jobs are getting created and will continue to get created that are better jobs. IT organizations are spending north of 70% of their budgets on maintenance of existing legacy applications. That means they're spending less than 30% of new systems. If you can automate things so that you have only 200 people doing existing stuff, a very large number of those jobs will get replaced by people doing new things.

It's the story of history. Would we rather be living in a world where we're trying to protect Pony Express jobs or one in which there's a telegraph, then the telephone, and so on? It's so much not a zero-sum game. Growth leads to growth. With growth comes a higher standard of living, higher-paying jobs, and on and on.

Q: What about the Americans who are displaced?
A: Sure, there absolutely need to be safety nets, so people aren't out on the streets and homeless. There needs to be retraining.

We have the world's best higher-education system. People come from all over the world to study at American universities. So let's take that strength and keep extending it with government programs and private enterprise to reach out and do a lot more continuing education and retraining. Tax credits, subsidies, private investment, severance benefits -- some combination of those things should work. The cost of that is low compared to the benefits of being in a dynamic economy.

Q: Nonetheless, a backlash against offshoring seems to be growing.
A: That's what worries me. John Kerry is running on a fear platform to some extent, running on this platform that special interests are out to get you -- which is code for "businessmen are evil." So clearly, there's a motivation to go demagogic on this issue. I think that's going to increase in the next five years.

But I feel better about a possible backlash than I did a few weeks ago. Dick Gephardt, for example, ran in Iowa as an anti-dynamism candidate: Protect jobs, protect unions, put up tariffs and barriers, anti-immigration, anti-free-trade. He got his clock cleaned. I was born in Iowa, and if he can't make that argument work in Iowa, it won't work anywhere.

Q: What kind of new jobs might emerge in the U.S. to replace those going overseas?
A: Whole categories of jobs will grow here -- new applications development, for example. A lot of the jobs going overseas initially are maintenance and support jobs. That should free up American programmers to build new systems, new applications, new Web sites. There will be entirely new industries.

Q: Like what?
A: Can't name examples. They don't exist yet. This is where people get tripped up. It requires a leap of faith. In 500 years of Western history, there has always been something new. Always always always always always.

It will be created by entrepreneurial capitalism. I'll give you an example. Look at Seattle. In the early 1990s, Boeing (BA ) was having a tough time as defense spending was shrinking. Somebody put up a billboard that said, "Will the last person to leave Seattle please turn out the lights." But look at what happened: Microsoft (MSFT ). Nordstrom (JWN ). Amazon.com (AMZN ). REI. Starbucks (SBUX ). Nintendo (NTDOY ). Six big new businesses.

At the time, nobody thought that they were going to be huge. People would have thought you were nuts to think that they would ever replace the aerospace jobs. They not only replaced them, but they gave Seattle an even higher standard of living.

Q: Is there any danger that the U.S. could offshore so much that it loses some essential skills to produce software and other tech products?
A: No chance whatsoever. The opposite happens -- we enhance innovation by moving our people up the ladder of creativity, innovation, technology, value creation. Offshoring is the process by which smart, innovative Americans are freed up to do more valuable things.

The next step is to move to higher-value services, for which there will be infinite demand because human wants and needs are infinite. Most jobs that will be created in the world to satisfy those wants and needs will be service jobs -- science, engineering, technological R&D, design, human factors, marketing, sales, advertising, media, finance, law -- you name it.

The standard of living in this country will skyrocket over the next 30 years, as it has over the last 50 years, if we don't freak out and ruin it all by panicking and doing stupid things like restricting offshoring. We just have to not screw it up.

Q: Is Opsware planning to hire offshore?
A: We're looking hard at hiring people in India. We're also considering other regions, including South America. We have one guy here who might want to go back to coordinate that. We'll start small, say a half-dozen, against an American employee base of around 140 today, and go from there.

Q: Are these additional jobs or replacements of U.S. jobs?
A: Kind of both at once. The stronger our business gets via outsourcing, the faster we will be able to invest in it and grow it, and the more people we'll be able to hire in the U.S., as well as overseas. It's just a question or whether we offshore and thereby grow to, say, 500 jobs in the U.S. and 100 overseas in five years, or whether we don't offshore and probably end up with fewer jobs in the U.S. and none offshore.

Everything interesting about job creation in the U.S. is associated with the creation of new markets. You don't see job creation in stable, established industries. You see job creation in new industries. What you want to do is encourage new industry growth using any means necessary, including permitting and even encouraging offshoring, to result in faster overall economic growth and job creation.

yahoo.businessweek.com