Replies

I figured I'd toss these 2 questions in here.

Please note, this isn't baiting or anything like that. It's a request for actual discussion on a couple issues that came up in here.

First, on the concept of "orgainsing" to prevent immigrants on H1Bs from taking your job. Do you see that as somehow different than unionising? Were you against unions to begin with? I'll agree that there are bad unions, but I don't think the concept itself is flawed. I'm curious as to what the people considering this plan of action feel.

Second, NAFTA and GATT were very bad pieces of legislation. But they weren't part of any liberal agenda. If you're against them, the only guy in the Presidential race actually talking about it as an issue (including Bush) is Dennis Kucinich (http://www.kucinich.net/index.htm and if you're wondering, it's pronounced coo-sin-ich). He's a progressive, which is sort of like a liberal. Some of you would call him a communist, but that's a tad strong. He's quite against those sort of free trade agreements, pointing out (correctly) that they helps multinational corporations at the expense of American workers, and (in the case of NAFTA, at least..I'm not sure about GATT) also work against democratic principles, since the corps can sue nations for enacting any law that may cut the profits of a corp compared to the laws of one of the other nations involved.

Also, please note that the "trade promotion authority" aka Fast Track authority that has been granted to George W. Bush will more likely bring about more deals like this, as opposed to ones that protected American jobs. Clinton was denied this authority by the Republican Congress. Personally, I think Fast Track is an awful idea, since it takes the Congress out of any trade debates, when the Congress is generally a better representative of the will of the people than the President.

Anyawy, that's my 2 cents. Flames will be ignored, actual debate will be responded to. I'm not going to call names, lay blame without evidence, or argue unfounded points. All I ask is the same in return.

Do you see that as somehow different than unionising?

Unionizing is probably not the right answer. The problem here is largely political and extends well beyond the workplace. Perhaps the right approach would be to organize a political interest group to lobby for the interests of displaced US workers. I am sure that our politicians will act responsibly when confronted by the prospect of several millions of votes.

If the Liberals were so far off in loony land I would expect them to take the issue up as a keystone of their platform. That is not going to happen anythime soon since the Democrats refuse to recognize anyone earning above the poverty level.