Modern Caveman: The OFFICIAL Ray Gordon Blog

A solution to the foreign labor problem

We lose jobs every year to other countries with cheaper labor than the United States.  No one really disputes this, although some say this is not a problem, while others say it is the death of the American economy.  I'm undecided on the issue, as I believe that this can work in our favor as much as against us, depending on which jobs leave and which stay.  Americans who learn to tap into this global economy are definitely profiting, while domestic companies and workers feel the pressure of foreign competition.  On the other hand, companies like Google and Microsoft do extremely well because of their multinational structure.  I've personally seen how this can benefit us, as many of my own internet customers send money into my local economy from far away. 

What I don't like seeing are countries where the workers take our jobs, but don't become consumers in return.  Henry Ford understood the benefit of ensuring that his workers were paid enough to also become his customers, and he is more or less the father of the modern American middle class.  It's doubtful Ford would ever have considered outsourcing, and likely instead would have lobbied to change the rules so as to reward companies for hiring American workers. 

My personal proposal represents a rather simple but effective compromise: pass a law requiring any American company to pay the American minimum wage to all of its workers, regardless of where those workers are located.  Raising the American minimum wage to a living wage would also be good, but even without that, at least every job created by an American company would pay our minimum wage, eliminating the primary incentive for sending the jobs offshore in the first place.  Throw in the cost of managing a foreign workforce, and the benefit to the economy of strengthing our consumer class of workers, and our economy would become much stronger and self-sustaining.

Anyone got a better idea?

Biden Announces

Word is that Joe Biden has expressed his intent to run for the presidency. 

I guess he thinks that the public forgets that little speech passage he lifted about 15-20 years ago that booted him out of the national spotlight.  Too bad he didn't cheat on his wife, because he'd be more likely to be forgiven for that.  He's also had some serious medical problems in the past (knocked him out in 1992), and while it wasn't cancer (no cancer survivor has ever won the presidency), it was still serious enough to remind the public of why we tend to elect those candidates with no such history.

Biden will get a few points early, but not make much noise.  He's already been considered and rejected by the public, and has way too much on the downside to overcome.  His best potential may be as a favorite-son candidate in what appears to be a hotly contested primary race that could go all the way to the convention, in which case he might be able to broker a cabinet position, although I think a spot on the ticket would be overreaching. 

Speaking of guys who cheated on their wives (or were accused of it anyway), what's Gary Hart been up to lately?

Boycott the GOOGLERS

Are you sick of GOOGLERS?

Has America turned into the former Soviet Union?  Thanks in part to Google, but in greater part to the GOOGLERS (i.e., the people who "Google" others by name), we're a lot closer than we've ever been.  People type others' names into the search engine, and act as if doing so makes them hip, trendy, superior, or anything other than a snoop, a gossip, or an idiot, because anyone with an axe to grind against someone can say anything on the internet and know that it will turn up in a Google search for the target.   

In the course of my internet work, I get defamed a lot, mostly by rival businesses or political enemies with an axe to grind.  Since I have also filed employment-discrimination lawsuits, that makes me a whistleblower, and Google dutifully informs any of my potential future employers of this anytime I would apply for a job.  Lord knows what that costs people these days.  The people with nothing to worry about are those who don't rock the boat enough to make any enemies, or those who simply conform and go along to get along.  Worse yet, these folks -- the "Googlers" for the most part -- also believe that if any slime has attached to your name on Google, you must have done something to bring it upon yourself.  Enough!!

It's time to boycott anyone and anything who even hints at "Googling" another person, or recommending it to others.  Moreover, the boycott should be 100 percent irreversible, as a deterrent to those in the future who think an apology will let them off the hook.  That someone is either so evil that they would lie about others or reference a search engine's lies about them, by snooping, or so ignorant that they actually believe everything they read, or act on it (picture a woman reading lies about her new boyfriend that were written anonymously by her old boyfriend for an example), these are not people we should be patronizing or socializing with. 

The next time you brag about "Googling" someone, I hope you run into someone like me, someone who will have learned all they need to know about you, and who will avoid you forever, not bothering to even try to disprove something you should never have believed in the first place.   Googlers are a far greater threat than Google, because they are what bring the lies to life every time they snoop, every time they read a lie, and every time they believe it, or even "play it safe, just in case."  To me, playing it safe means avoiding people who would have been better suited for the KGB than anything American.

Obama vs. Hillary

An unexpected and potentially highly competitive battle is shaping up between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the 2008 Presidential Nomination.  Since women and minorities are traditional Democractic constituents, this could divide the party a great deal.   

Despite the potential for a race and gender war, Obama has star quality and would likely make a strong candidate, but Hillary has done time both in the White House and the Senate, on the campaign trail three times, and has the organization behind her.  If anyone remembers 1984, Walter Mondale had the same advantages over Gary Hart, who would have taken the nomination were it not for a total lack of support from party insiders, who ensured that Mondale got most or all of the delegates, even as Hart won six of the last seven primaries.  Only a victory in California in June 1984 saved Mondale, even when people had thought the race was over.  Mondale was then trounced by 20 points.

In this race, the presence of John Edwards is a big difference, as Edwards is more likely to appeal to white males, who won't be split.  Edwards has experience as a presidential candidate, plus he is young and without the Clinton baggage.  Obama would also be an appealing vice presidential candidate for either Edwards or Clinton, so the way I see the race shaping up now is for Obama to start off strong, for Hillary to challenge him, and for Edwards to finish strongest and grab the nomination, with Obama as his running mate for you "exacta" players.

Why I Will Never Vote For Hillary Clinton

Why I Will Never Vote For Hillary Clinton

1.  "Section 230 immunity."  This law, 47 USC §230, grants "publisher and speaker" immunity to ISPs for what their users do.  What this means is that "I heard it on the internet" has become a legitimate defense against defamation (the US Supreme Court hasn't checked in yet), since the person who repeats the gossip (or the ISP who distributes it or Google, who archives it) is supposedly immune, even as a distributor (the law said nothing about protecting distributors; the courts did that for them).  In Barrett v. Rosenthal, the CA Supreme Court noted that congress has not clarified the law to exclude distributors of libel (like ISPs and Google rather than users),

2.  Too many corrupt friends.  I can't believe these politicians don't realilze that many of the executives they do those smiling photo-ops with are corrupt, and walk all over people like me, i.e., whistleblowers.  Any DEMOCRAT should revere the whistleblower and not send a message that says "I'm friends with the person that fucked your career over."  It's pointless to confront her on this, as then they see the whistleblower as the problem (unless it matches her political agenda, which for a man is not often).  Since the whistleblower often has no money and is unpopular, it is very easy to act smug and use mock pity as a means of deflection.  The saying "tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are" applies here.  Your friends are shit, Hillary.

3.  Hillary Clinton does not oppose psychiatric examinations conducted by defense experts against whistleblowing Plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases.  I know this because she has not made the practice illegal.  For example, a woman who is sexually harassed and sues her employer for "emotional distress" can be subjected to an "independent medical examination" to determine the extent of her damages.  The exam is conducted by a doctor hired by the person who harassed her.  This discourages whistleblowing.  When I sued an employer for discrimination based on *perceived disability*, a federal court ordered (and an appeal court upheld) an examination to determine my "employability."  I had thought my defense to this exam was solid, but the courts did not agree.  The defense was that I was EMPLOYED.  What's next, testing world-champion sprinters to see if they can walk?  The employer who got this exam ordered on me (I was fined $1,000 for not going) was later revealed to have a rapist a sexual harasser, and a man who was caught with child pornography on his office computer.  Hillary Clinton has spoken very highly of this employer.  I guess only the opinions of the rich count in the Democratic party.

4.  She is not part of the solution; she is therefore part of the problem.  She gives privileged access to the privileged who abuse their privilege.  Money, good food, and attractive people don't make for justice. 

People like me are shut out from having input to politicians like this, which means she is trivializing many injustices in this country.  This is true of most candidates, but at least others are more sensitive on the main issues than Hillary is.  To be walked on by those who are rather close to her and have input with her, and to be shut off from communicating the injustice, or having anything done to fix it when it is communicated, leaves me only with the option of not voting for her, and I won't.

I urge every American with any type of commitment to justice to do the same.

Ray Gordon

Edwards For President In 2008

For now, I'm supporting John Edwards for President in 2008.  In addition to liking his politics, and that he is a lawyer (will be necessary for internet reform and tort reform), Edwards has a lot of history on his side, as a candidate who has run before and who did better than expected in his "debut."

Historically, candidates who have run before have an advantage over those who have not.  In 2004, neither candidate had previously run.  In 2000, Gore had run before for president and won the popular vote, while losing a very controversial election in part due to the Nader wildcard candidacy.  In 1996, Bob Dole, who had run before, took the Republican nomination, while in 1992, the only Democrat who had run before seriously was Jesse Jackson.  In 1988, Gary Hart would have won his party's nomination easily had it not been for the Donna Rice scandal, and "41" (who had run in 1980) took the nomination over a field of rookies, just as in 1984 Hart had lost the nomination to Mondale, who had been on two national tickets.  Even Reagan in 1980 had a previous failed run in 1976 to set the table, while Richard Nixon's failure in 1960 came before his success in 1968. 

History is definitely on Edwards's side here.  He is intelligent, charismatic, accomplished, and unapologetically liberal.  Hillary Clinton is formidable but will unlikely be able to stop the tidal wave of support that Edwards is likely to continue building as the field narrows.  Barack Obama may be a rising star, but he hasn't been through the ringer the way Edwards has, and very few first-time candidates ever win presidential nominations unless they are war heroes, which Obama isn't.

On the Republican side, John McCain has the best combination of candidate experience, senate experience, and party loyalty over the last eight years.  Expect him to wrap up the nomination quickly after calling in the massive number of favors he has accumulated.  He sat on the sidelines in 2000 after a very dirty campaign by Bush, stayed loyal to his party, and the 2008 nomination is the logical payoff for his years of loyal and very undeserved service to his party.   

See you next week.

Ray Gordon