Well, I guess the Bushies have proven that integrity doesn’t matter. To some extent, I guess we all knew that. This is the age of "reality TV." Don’t live your own life, live vicariously through someone else on TV. "It’s REAL. Those scenes would never be staged." You have to hand it to them.
The Republicans are obviously better at appealing to the fears of the populace, and pacifying them with candy. On the other hand, the Democrats want to believe in Camelot again – as if it ever existed; Kennedy won by a thin margin – and engage people’s hopes and desires for a better future.
Who’s more in touch with the reality of the times? Or, who’s creating the times? Seems sort of ironic. The same people that champion "family values," are also the people that undercut democracy by pursuing a campaign of debasement – attack, defamation, and false representation.
Where do we go from here? Personally, I think the tides are going to turn, even if it takes a decade. It might be advantageous for us liberals to take over the Republican Party the way the Christian Right has. Would be awfully funny to get a radical leftist elected to office under the guise of being a Republican.

Position: What’s the key word in the presidential election this fall? I don’t think it’s Iraq, or economy, or even "security." The key word, as I see it, is integrity. A word that is conspicuously absent from election materials. George Bush has had every opportunity this world has to offer presented to him on a silver platter, and he has never failed to achieve mediocrity. The overriding message behind Mr. Bush’s life is not to reach for your highest aspirations, but to use every trick or opportunity available to your own benefit – as well that of your undeserving friends.
The ultimate conservative mantra is to consolidate power in the hands of "the knowledgeable few." The masses are not educated enough to know, or do, the right thing; therefore, misinformation is deliberately crafted to support the central premise. It’s unfortunate, but it wouldn’t happen if it didn’t work. There are too many studies that support it. How many Americans believe that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq? Or, how many low to middle-income persons believe that tax cuts for the wealthy benefit them?
In contrast, John Kerry’s record in Congress doesn’t matter to me. I watched the Democratic convention briefly, but the rhetoric really meant nothing. Someone who strives for greatness despite being born into privilege has integrity in my book. Any man who enlists in the military to fight a war he’s not entirely certain about because of his sense of duty and responsibility has integrity.
The liberal mantra, if you could say there is one, is more about fairness than anything else. It’s inconceivable to me that this message is not more widely accepted. One really has to understand the nature of wealth to comprehend the significance – wealth is nothing more than a societal agreement. Society agrees to the idea of personal property, and thus that right is protected. If that agreement is broken, perhaps by the poor who are pushed to such a point as having nothing to lose [in the manner of the French revolution] then wealth ceases to exist in its present form.
The current election is not just about the presidency of the U.S. The election is about differing ideals and the future of the country. Do we strive for greatness and equality of opportunity for all, or do we trust a number of stodgy old-white-men to make decisions behind closed doors that "benefit everyone?"

Position: In a conversation I had many years ago with a friend, I suggested that it was “wrong” for people to demonstrate against the U.S. military and their combat actions. I’d like to take a moment and revise that. The point I was trying to make at the time was that it’s wrong for people to demonstrate against, or to, the military as an organization.
I fully understand that certain actions are outrageous and unacceptable, but I do not feel that demonstrating against the military is the most effective method of resolving the situation. Demonstrations against the military do not serve to correct wrongful and egregious actions, but do contribute to a decrease in the overall morale of military forces – usually under high stress given their combat role.
Speaking as a former military member, we are all fully aware that the orders we follow are by choice. However, whether or not we are involved in any “combat” or “policing” situations is a decision made by government leadership, lawmakers and the public-at-large.
I personally feel that a certain degree of excessive or illegal actions can be expected in any war or warlike situation; thus the expression “unleash the dogs of war.” Combat, and war in general, is not a role that any person can be expected to perform according to a predetermined guideline or rulebook. Yes, training is carried out to prepare soldiers for the situations they might encounter, but how strictly that training is adhered to in the midst of the high stress of gunfire and bombings is a different matter altogether.
Ultimately, there is nothing clean about war. I fully believe that military service members should be answerable to U.S. and U.N. laws, but public outcry and demonstration should be directed towards government leadership and lawmakers – who should consider potential debacles prior to committing troops.

Quote: McWorld’s advocates will argue that the “market” does “serve” individuals by empowering them to “choose” but the choice is always about which items to buy and consume, never about whether to buy or consume anything at all; or about the right to earn an income that makes consumption possible; or about how to regulate and contain consumption so that it does not swallow up other larger public goods that cannot be advanced in the absence of democratic public institutions.

Jihad vs. McWorld, by Benjamin R. Barber

The latest dilemma: At what point does the political-economy collapse? There’s a continuing push for internationalized capitalism and expanding markets, at the same time, there is less concern for growing unemployment and societal disunity – not just in the U.S., but worldwide.
If we accept that the cost of living exceeds job growth and real wage increases, then we must also accept that at some point in the future this situation will create havoc.
Internationalization of capitalism involves the quest for cheap labor markets to produce goods sold in the first-world market, where the highest profits can be achieved. The inherent problem of internationalization is that it requires cheap labor, and in order for the U.S. to compete in a world economy the U.S. will need to devolve salaries to a point equivalent to labor markets elsewhere in the world.
Compounding the problem is that the cost of living in the U.S. is among the highest in the world. Continued internationalization threatens the societal structure of the U.S. by denying the backbone that creates and maintains the [consumer] prosperity of this country. Is it possible to return to feudalism? I would argue that polarization of this U.S. society is one of the greatest threats of our future. There are too many Americans who will not accept marginalization in order to support the powers-that-be.
Revolution has always been fomented from the marginalized middle class. The powers-that-be continue to market the idea of the individual and divide the interests of the middle class, but that can only work for so long. At a certain point, the populace wakes from its coma of plenitude and demands the parity it deserves.

OpEd: The Outsourcing Debate, or lack of one

The current silence in the media today regarding outsourcing is horrifying. A sound and reasoned debate is desperately needed, and tragically short. The only voice in the media is entirely one-sided and not at all useful. The fallacy of this debate as proposed by Corporate America is that it’s somehow good for America. This proposal rests on three premises that are essentially false.

The first premise is that there are insufficient professionals – engineers and scientists – to supply American business demands. American universities do not graduate enough math and science majors to supply corporate interests. Thus, corporations must look overseas for their supply of professionals. If one understands the nature of capitalism, anytime there is a supply shortage demand increases and costs escalate. What is not generally understood is that this is good for America. By increasing salaries, more students are likely to study math and science to guaranty their future career success. However, by outsourcing companies have managed to subvert capitalism by acquiring their personnel overseas at a fraction of the cost. By doing this, they manage to drive down the costs of professional salaries to those commensurate with the third world, where professionals do not have nearly the same education costs as those in the U.S. Further, by driving down professional salaries corporations have reduced the likelihood that prospective students would go to the trouble of studying key subject areas – if there is no reward in doing so, they are not likely to do it. This further reduces the amount of students studying math and science, which is the basis of the argument.

The second premise is that by outsourcing corporations claim that they are able to reduce costs and pass those savings on to the consumer in the form of low cost products – thus pushing that money into the economy. This proposition is actually laughable. By firing three million workers this is somehow good because now those people could buy cheaper products, if they had jobs. Further, the rest of us who managed to maintain employment are now given the privilege of paying more for services – for providing healthcare for those now uninsured, for sustaining higher taxes or a higher debt burden as a result of a lower tax base, or for providing city services for those not able to pay.

Finally, corporate leadership claims that by outsourcing profits are maintained and American interests are somehow served. This argument rests on the notion that American business is somehow intrinsically American because it originated in the U.S. or serves the U.S. consumer. This, however, is not necessarily the case. Many “U.S.” corporations now register in the Caribbean islands – to reduce their tax liability. They produce their products, if they produce a product, in overseas markets in So. East Asia or Latin America. And, with outsourcing, any professional services required to design and package a product or service is additionally accomplished overseas. Given these conditions, what could be said about a “U.S.” corporation that makes it more American than a foreign corporation that sells products in the U.S?

The sociological terminology associated with this situation is “the tragedy of the commons” – where increasing numbers of users attempt to gain an unfair advantage at the expense of the system that sustains them. Unfortunately, more and more companies are taking advantage of their American association in order to reap the rewards of the American consumer market. At the same time, fewer and fewer companies are concerned with contributing to the economy they so clearly benefit from. If there is no penalty in non-contribution, this kind of behavior will only get worse. In the end, what is to happen when none of them are willing to contribute?

Rant: Day of Frustration

The division of motor vehicles, in my case, has to be synonymous with time wasted. I honestly don’t think it’s possible to visit the agency without getting caught in some foul up from my past. Remember that speeding ticket you got in New York when you just got your license? Well, it turns out that the court administrator in that little community in the-middle-of-nowhere never recorded your payment – and now you have to find that ten-plus year-old record of your payment to clear up this matter.

I argue that there should be a statute of limitations on vehicular fines. If after five years the penalty has not been paid or acknowledged, then it should be annulled. The fact is that it’s entirely conceivable that the fine has been paid and not recorded as such – a result of some administrative error. In this situation the burden falls upon the fined to prove they have, in fact, paid the fine; the downside is that records beyond five years are rarely maintained. The fined, in this particular case, would now be required to pay the penalty twice in order to settle the motor vehicle records.

Critics may argue that this kind of system keeps criminals off the streets and highways by identifying them through their driver’s licenses. The most blaring inconsistency with that reasoning is that criminals have no problem with breaking the law – which is why they’re criminals. If they want to circumvent the system, they have only to use an alias to apply for a license in another state.

Another argument is that it pays to keep all this information straight so one doesn’t get into trouble. That would seem fair if in fact there were some sort of justice associated with it. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. The only justification for a system of this sort is economics. The townships that impose the fines seek to obtain needed fees, in lieu of taxes, through a system that is highly suspect. It seems entirely strange that there should be a statute of limitation on every crime, except murder and paying fines on your driver’s license. The lesson to be learned here is that there is no justice.

Words: Employment in America
I've come to a conclusion... There are two tracks in the employment sector these days, and neither is good. One is the uneducated [non-diploma] track, where you just go straight into the workforce and develop experience. These people are not unintelligent, but "limited" from the outset. One could achieve an education, but ones upward mobility is somewhat limited.
The other is the educated track - where the person goes to college and gets a degree or extended degree [bachelors, graduate] before entering the workforce.

REALITY of the job market today is that there are TOO many companies that are not hiring the latter in significant numbers, unless you want to work on "commission." The barely livable wage today is being paid to the people with 5-10 yrs administrative experience [with or without a degree]. "We're looking for good soldiers."
If you're educated and looking for a job, the competition is very high for even the most menial position – unless you have specialized skills. The $30k/yr. job now receives applications from law school and graduate students. Can employers afford to be disrespectful and selective? Unfortunately YES. And thus, an education does not really yield a living wage [factoring in the cost of education and expenses of living in a city]. One could conceivably apply for the admin positions, but companies are distrustful of that too, as they think you're likely to jump-ship as soon as you find a "real" job.
So where does that leave a great number of college graduates? At best, disgruntled - at worst, marginalized. Tax cuts for the wealthy is NOT, nor has it ever been, a solution. It's important to remember that historically revolution is fomented in the marginalized and educated middleclasses.

OpEd: Employment
A recent CNN news story reported that a growing amount of business professionals claim that they “have a shortage of qualified candidates” for open employment positions. I would like to take a moment and dispute this claim.

As many of you know, or don’t know, I have been looking for work for over a year now. My resume listed everywhere – employers have contacted me on very few occasions. When I contact employers directly about open positions, or about finding a position, I’m told to leave my resume and someone will contact me. No one ever contacts me. If I call the prospective employer, the receptionist screening the calls nearly always assures me that “they are busy and someone will likely contact you if they have an opening.”

Now, I won’t argue that I’m the right candidate for every position, or that I have the right qualifications for every position. It appears to me, however, that prospective employers are so overly picky these days that a shortage of qualified candidates could be claimed for something as trivial as a difference of 5 wpm in typing speed.
So, the inevitable question is: what constitutes “qualified candidates?” Without a doubt a Fry Cook at McDonalds would not qualify as an Executive Assistant at a Fortune 500 company; however, an Administrative Assistant should definitely be considered. Moreover, anyone with administrative skills should be considered.
The problem with the economy today is NOT a shortage of qualified candidates. The problem today is a shortage of vision. During the 90’s a janitor who showed a degree of intelligence and capacity would have been trained and promoted as high as his competence took him.

Today managers and human resource professionals find any reason at all to disqualify otherwise qualified candidates. “We know that this position isn’t your dream job, so we’re looking for another candidate,” I was told recently. The message, of course, is that they did not trust that I have integrity, and assumed I would jump ship as soon as I found my “dream job.” The answer for them is that the candidate they seek aspires to mediocrity; if the position was for an Administrative Assistant, then that person should never want to be an Office Manager or anything more than an AA. In fact, there is little incentive for that AA to learn anything new in order to contribute to, or enhance, a company’s bottom-line. Why should they? Zero aspiration equals zero motivation.

Previously, the focus of hiring was not on the bottom-line, but on possibility. The janitor, as mentioned earlier, was thought capable of adding to an area of the company and was trained to provide that needed ‘umph.’ Did he know he was capable? Did management know he was capable? Did he have any kind of record?
Today the point is the bottom-line. Business professionals want people with a “proven track record,” even if that record is for emptying the trash. “Yes, at my previous job I was able to empty twenty-four garbage cans in one hour.” In fact, they will undoubtedly list the position that way in the classifieds, “Fortune 500 company in need of experienced Janitor. Must have 3-5 years experience and ability to empty twenty-four garbage cans in one hour minimum.” Otherwise competent janitors would apply for this position, or would be considered for this position, but today they are “not qualified.”

Now, I’m sure people would argue that limits must be set, and standards adhered to, to properly limit the pool of potential job candidates. There is a certain degree of validity to this argument, depending upon the potential position of the aspiring candidate. If one was hiring for a Telecom Technician, obviously the proper candidate must have Telecom experience – likewise for a business manager. However, when hiring for that same position, one cannot rule out telecom technicians because they lack experience with one or two pieces of telecom equipment, or fall short in the years of experience category. As any Industrial-Organization Psychologist would tell you, ‘previous experience is no guarantor of future success. One cannot gauge the motivations of potential candidates based on their current abilities.’

When it comes down to the bottom-line, this talk about “lack of qualified candidates” sounds like whining. What happened to the managers of years past who had the ability to gather a group of disparate people, unite them in a common vision, and inspire them to succeed? What happened to the HR professionals who had the ability to see that diamond-in-the-ruff capable of enhancing the company’s potential? A real “lack of qualified candidates” should suggest that businesses are investing in education and training programs – however, I shudder to think of what the reality is. Has the greatness passed?