external monologue

Andy,

Are you guys gonna show the film at Local Yokels?

andy,
CBS polls after the debate show differently on who won (news report http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/politics/main641817.shtml)
They talked a lot less about the war b/c they have one debate. Bush pushed for the 1st pres. debate to be on foreign policy and that's what it was on. Next pres. debates should be more versatile.

I watched about 3/4 of the debate last night before I got a phone call and watched the end on mute and agree that Cheney came across better to me. Somehow with the sound off even more so; Edwards' agitation smacks of immaturity in some irrational part of my brain. But I'm still at a loss. Seemingly contradictory things spew forth continually from the two sides and I feel ill-equipped for solid, fact-based decision making. Each one could be distorting things, each one could be skewing facts - and no doubt are at least somewhat. The thing that's been driving me insane about this entire thing, and I would consider myself legitimately undecided at this point, is that in the end I too feel myself making decisions based not on any real evidence (I'm still unclear of exactly what their respective and vague plans for Iraq post-November would mean, or what their postions mean in relation to the deficit which is an amount of money I also cannot conceptualize with ramifications I do not pretend to understand - world economy collapse? paychecks never coming? bank crisis? milk costing $100 a gallon?) but on what two politicians on a screen look like after I've pressed the mute button. Arrrrggggg.

So, I respect the people who are Andy's friends and post to this blog. My question: Is there a reasoned, balanced way to approach modern politics? Most of my friends and family I see with a strong opinion seem decided 17% on factual evidence and 80% on emotions/guts/hearsay and %3 on haircut. Back to work for me. Oh, and I tried to ask a similar question on the Kerry website months ago and was trussed up like a naked chicken by people accusing me of willful ignorance (I'd read the "position" parts of the site and could make little sense of them). Truss away.

This election is intense. Five years ago I would have said politics do not interest me, but this race has gripped me. There is a lot of spin coming from both sides, facts are easily lost.

One item I have a researched opinion on is outsourcing of jobs to other countries. Offshoring has had virtually no impact on the unemployment rate, quality of available jobs, or the economy. The fraction of jobs being offshored is totally insignificant in the overall jobs picture, and many economists feel that offshoring has an overall positive impact on the economy. Offshoring boosts profits, allows corporations to strengthen their core operations, lowers consumer prices, and increases a nation like India's demand for imports. Even if you don't believe that offshoring has a positive economic impact, the fact remains that only a handful of jobs are being offshore outsourced.

One interesting fact about the deficit that I learned recently is in its accounting. Government accounting is atypical. When a company buys a building it is listed on its books as an asset. When the federal government buys a building, land, or anything else it is expensed but not listed as an asset. Consider all the land, resources, and buildings the government owns, none of it is counted against the deficit.

I read a couple articles recently that basically indicated the president has almost no impact on the economy, and certainly not on the level of job quality. As much as I hate the situation with Iraq, which has to be one of the biggest intelligence blunders of all time, I will not vote based on the mishandling of Iraq. During the next term the president could choose up to four supreme court justices, that is why I must vote for W. Iraq was a mistake that either candidate will have to make the best of, but we can change who will be impacting justice and law for many years to come.

very interesting. especially about the supreme court. what seems so intriguing to me is the all-important feel choosing a president has versus a senator/congressman or member of the judiciary branch(which as your point illustrates is somewhat out of the public hands). it is fascinating to me how a nation can focus on things like offshoring of jobs, with so little understanding of economic currents. and your point about the economy is salient as well - my sister and i were sitting there wondering if every voter in the country had slept through basic high school economics - short of a catastrophic event, like the plague or a massive terrorist strike, on a given president's watch (which would be hard to pin entirely on him, if at all) the economy seems to run on currents and cycles that take years to record the shockwaves. it would seem to me that the overvalued and glutted 1990's - tech bubble and all - would have more to do with the current economy than anything that bush/congress drove through with policy.

Another layer of complication:

When it comes to the Supreme Court a President doesn't always get what he/she wants. For example, the most "liberal" judge on the Court today is probably Justice Stevens. Stevens was appointed by Republican Gerald Ford. Also, the Court really isn't a political body- i.e. Justices don't have a party affiliation and they aren't subject to pressure from outside forces. So, there is nothing to keep a Justice in line with a nominating President's political views. In addition, Justices ' views/approaches can vary wildly depending on context. Justice Scalia is know as an arch-conservative, but he has penned some the most significant opinions in support of environmental regulation- probably not what Reagan had in mind.

Perhaps the Supreme Court issue is just as perilous as the outsourcing ruse?

Jes, www.Sojo.net is a great site that has helped me get away from seeing things as either Republican or Democrat and define the issues more clearly as a Christian. Abortion and Gay rights are not the only Christian issues. We need to be more than single issue voters. Check out their current petition
Joel I agree with you on the Supreme Court replacements. That is going to have a huge impact over the next 20-30 years. Kerry has already said he will only pick Pro-Choice Judges, regardless of the other issues. I would say this forces me to vote for Bush, but those same Pro-Choice judges may also have a better understanding of other social issues overall. I don't know, I don't want to vote against Kerry/for Bush just because of this one issue. Either way, a law doesn't change the hearts of the nation.

The thing about offshoring hit me a little weird.

When you say "a handful of jobs," I assume you mean out of all jobs that exist in America. However, a huge percentage of jobs can't be offshored; you actually have to be here to do the job, all the way from mechanics to doctors.

I happen to work in Information Technology, where almost all jobs can easily be done remotely, and offshoring is a signficant issue in my field. It's in every IT magazine; it's on every IT blog and forum. I know plenty of people who have lost their jobs to offshoring.

Considering the fact that most jobs are not even candidates for offshoring, I don't think you have a fully-orbed picture of its impact until you examine specific industries.

1) Common American Electoate Theory of the 80's and the 90's states that 40% of the voting population would vote Democrat til they die and the same was true for the Republicans, another 40% would vote Republican no matter what. Since the 2000 election and a little before the 40% rule is still in place. The issue is that the 20% of undecideds has shrunk. This is currently a very polarized electorate so that means less undecideds. Nationally, this can be seen in the polls and the 2000 election. So any slip ups by the candidates in a debate or whatever could swing the vote. Why the electorate is so polarized is another question.

2) Macro economic theory (Keysian and Monetary theory) states that there is a realtionship between the Govt's actions and the economy. What has shown as most successful is that one part of Govt acts while the other does not. For example, the early 80's: Reagan was considered to be passive (tax cuts) while Folker, the Fed chairman was extremely proactive by forcing the rates aas high as 18% in the beginning of the 80's and then bringing them down. With Reagan's passive approach there was only one entity messing with a primary driver in the economy. This approach has been the standard model on which Wall Street watches. Presidents and Congresses are aware that if they do not have the coopertation of the Fed Chair, they can really screw up the economy.

3) The statement speaking to the Tech boom and bust is right on the mark. The economy overall (last 20 years) is moving along quite well. To get a major move or change in the level of the economy it has to come from the outside the Monetary Approach of watching the interest rates. It will take a boom in an industry or a change in lifestyles. That was a good observation.

4) I would say that if you want to see what it will be like for a post Nov Iraq, the current military objectives is a good insight to the future. A Bush Admin will take a much tougher stand with the insurgents and may throw caution to the win and a few mosques. This is the approach that Syria takes and unfortunately it seems to be the only approach that works in this culture. He who has the guts to throw downt he hammer makes the rules.

5) Great Picture... this is what we wait for

I know, I know... it should be Volker

Sorry

The question you guys should be asking is why is the electorate so polarized right now?

Checked out sojo, it does have some good perspectives. Although, it kind of felt to me that the point of the site is to persuade Christians to vote for democrats. One of the main thrusts of that site was that Jesus taught us to be peacemakers, advocates for the poor, and defenders of justice. I agree with that, but I don't want to give that power and responsibility over to the democratic party either.

When I lived in Europe their government seemed more effective with all of those things, Europe is socialistic in general. How come they are the most humanistic/atheistic continent? For me I think a lot of it has to do with society giving over power to the state. Even religion is run by the state in some European countries.

Government control is a critical difference between the republican and democratic ticket. Republicans are more likely to allow for school vouchers to privatize education. They are pushing to privatize social security. Businesses are taxed less by republicans. I for one do not want to depend on the government to defend the rights of the poor, educate us, or give us healthcare. The private sector is much more efficient, thoughtful, and productive.

OK here is the deal with IT and offshoring as I understand it. Since 1999 70,000 computer programmers lost their jobs. However, most of the jobs lost were due to the dot com bomb, and not offshoring. Still, since that time 115,000 software engineering jobs were created. 83,000 computer support specialist, administrators, and systems analysts were added to the job market. The perception within IT is that jobs lost to the 1999 IT bubble burst were due to outsourcing. The statistics do not support that, and in fact more jobs have been created than lost within the IT sector since 1999.

All of this being said IT workers do have legitimate concerns. India is churning out quality IT graduates at a rate that far exceeds the US graduates. People within IT will lose their jobs to offshoring. The projection is that by 2015 3.3 million business-processing jobs will have been offshored. However, the US economy still expects to add around 35 million jobs within that same time period.

Sorry about your friends this IT thing will be rough for some people.

The problem with "The statistics do not support that" is that there isn't a "The Statistics." I don't know where yours are from. I recognize the 3.3 million over 15 years loss of jobs from Forrester Research. However, Goldman-Sachs estimates a loss of 6 million over ten years.

As far as jobs lost due to offshoring to date, Goldman-Sachs reports 300k - 500k, Business Week reports 400k-500k, and economy.com reports 995k.

The difficulties are that government agencies do not keep statistics on offshoring, and, like the excellent point you made, it is difficult to determine how much of that loss is really due to offshoring or other factors. It's not even easy to firmly define what counts as "offshoring."

I appreciate your point about the new jobs offsetting that trend, but once again, statistics differ widely in job growth expectations, although the Bureau of Labor seems to be around what you said. Somewhat less (21 million by 2012).

However, keep in mind that new job growth isn't just set against outsourcing, but *all* unemployment. If 20.9 million of those new jobs are offset by plants closing down, for instance, then we still have a significant problem with offshoring. You can't just assume that all those new jobs are going to be open for people who lose their jobs to offshoring.

Finally, once again, you have to look at industry impact. If 10 IT people lose their jobs, and 500 new neurosurgeon jobs open up, that doesn't really help those 10 IT people.

I appreciate the overall thrust of your point, though, that there is a lot of paranoia in the air and it is difficult to pinpoint if offshoring really has done all the damage ascribed to it. I'm speaking more from the tenor of people in my industry, and I appreciate your condolences in that regard.

One thing I think we should push for is accurate data on these matters, and I know that's one of Kerry's planks. *shrugs*

If we do not hear from Josiah or Mesh, then this subject cannot truly be said to have been dealt with.

Are you all actually this polite when you talk about politics or is Andy censoring these posts? :)

To (hopefully) continue this trend:
I totally agree that no-one should be a one-issue voter.

But I also think the Iraq issue is the main issue in this election, mainly because it covers so many other issues:

-Halliburton getting the reconstruction contract for Iraq after a no-bid process. (government is actually extending its reach over private enterprise here, dictating who gets what)

-the traditional conservative stance on foreign policy, non-intervention, totally turned on its head

-the traditional conservative stance on smaller government turned on its head by the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security, amongst others

-the deficit

-our traditional parnters in global undertakings totally alienated

etc etc.

Anyways. I'm not sure that Kerry winning the election would help all of this, but I'm quite certain Bush getting re-elected would only make things worse.

Also, I'd like to think that candidates' haircuts or resemblence to Lurch from the Addams Family has nothing to do with my voting decisions. And that issues of social justice and personal morality do. For example:
if i had rolled back 20 years of anti-pollution laws, saying i expected the biggest polluters in the country to "police themselves," maybe i'd feel a twinge of guilt before going to bed each night.

or if I had committed any kind of "blunder" or had any kind of "intelligence failure" that resulted in ANY american troops, not to mention Iraqi civilians, being killed, I would hope that I would be somehow called to account for it. This administration is not only not even apologizing, it's still saying it did the right thing. And we're somehow not demanding that they be held accountable. Why?

I mean, is this on par with Clinton's cigar "blunder"? Presidents under pressure have to be expected to have some kind of major moral failings that they are allowed to lie about?

Ach.

andy, you know how to make my day -- give me a tom waits song to play anyday! great pisture, by the way.

First of all, I thought we were being polite, Jerah. Second, there is so much intrigue to this election race that I think I'm only following it for the drama.

Iraq was/is a mistake. You might even say it was the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. The trouble I have is who to blame. If you read quotes from the major politicians they sound the same: Gore, Clinton, Kerry, Bush, Cheney, and so on. Iraq and Saddam were major threats that needed to be dealt with. After the fact, everyone is saying how obvious it was that there was no threat. If I really thought that Bush deliberately and elaborately schemed a totally unnecessary war I could not vote for him.

Jerah, love your bullet point style. And no, we can't blame Clinton for the cigar blunder unless he followed up with any oral manipulation with the insertion object or target.

sup, jerah. hope you and matt are well.

so, while i'm not actually going to vote based on haircut - as tempting as it might be, and as silly as I think Edwards' upswept do is, my political paralysis has to do with exactly the points that both you and joel illuminate. and the rest of these farily well-reasoned, thoughtful posts.

who's to blame for what? what can a man/an administration be held responsible for?
what should the consequences be? alternately: from this bad position, what is the least-bad way to go forward given the state of things? (both domestic and international)
why indeed IS the electorate so polarized? (around my workplace i'm pretty scared to even admit i'm undecided about the whole thing - ironic since we just put up a big exhibit about free speech)
while i find bush semi-repulsive (that said in the most polite of ways) as a leader, i'm also squeamish about kerry for a variety of reasons.
Decided points:
1. I will vote.
2. I may write in Jim Lehrer for president.
all of this though has renewed my fervor to seek clarity in the process. sorry to hijack your blog, andy.

1) We can end the references to the Clinton Cigar and any derivitives there of. It was sick and disgusting to hear about it than and it is today. This is the wrong Blog, the worng time and wrong place for stuff like this. We can end that now.

2) Tell me this: why was it right to go into Bosnia, why was it right to go into Haiti. When democrats do it's part of an "international committment to peace and democracy". When the REpublicans do it it is portrayed as a political adventure allowing them to flex their hawkish feathers. You can not have it both ways. If you said we were supposed to go to Bosnia and Haiti then we should have gone and are in the right place in Iraq. We weren't going to get any coalition as long as Russia, Germany and France were making money off Iraq. People were dying and they didn't do a thing. The mistake was that the intelligence beforehand - all intelligence said there were weapons in Iraq.

2)What we forget is that a lot of the admin that is currently in office were in office under George H. It probably rubbed them all the wrong way that BUsh was defeated and Saddam was till in power. A good part of the current admin did not want that to happen again. Were they quick to the trigger? Obviously. They did not take the time to verify the intelligence but when you think an raging idiot has nukes, you may not have that luxury. The question is not whether the world is better off without Saddam but is Iraq better off. They are.

3) The Loss of American soldiers'lives-did you know that the number of deaths annually in Iraq is about the same number of deaths that occur while the military is not deployed. It is not an excuse but these men and woman signed up for this. We didn't.

yow!

Joel:

-i was being serious about you guys being polite, i think this is a great discussion. with the notable expection of the next-to-the-last post, of course.

-i heart bullets. i mean, bullet points.

I don't know what debate you were watching. Cheney was awful. He refused to attempt a rebuttal on more than one occasion. He failed to debate. He made vague references to "inconsistencies" and the challenger's "record", rarely providing evidence to back it up. Edwards provided much more evidence to reaffirm his position. The closing arguments said it all though. Edwards promised a better America, Cheney tried to scare the shit out of America with terrorism and war.

I don't think people can be Christians and vote democrat...

actually, I don't think that at all.

There, I chimed in, with late night sarcasm

I am voting for GW, because I dig the whole pre-emptive thing. If you're the biggest kid on the block you've got the responsibility to kick ass and take names.

Great picture. I love the color and feel like I could almost reach out and touch the water...it seems so alive. If I could take pictures like this I might have cropped it slightly larger (away from the flower petal edges), but I am still without a DSLR.

Josiah, don't you know that *real* Christians are voting for Michael Peroutka?

Josiah, don't steal my blogs thunder. You wanna say that you can't be a Christian and a Democrat, say it on collegetower.chattablogs.com. It's intense over there.

no blog is complete without the latest blog-gossip.
this is hilarious and i'm totally going to watch the debate tonight just to watch for the "bulge":
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/index_np.html

It could be a bullet proof vest...mine bulges like that also.

Andy,
I hope you're planning on taking us along with you on the road trip via the blog. Surely you would. Wouldn't you?

Omg thats right! Please come see me and my friends! ;)