With India and China growing exponentially in the East, American corporations are becoming less likely to show their allegiance to the United States. To cut costs and maximize profit, they have diverted productions overseas and left many Americans out in the cold. They've basically jumped ship, and have refused to apologize for it. There is an increasing concern by conservatives that if the Democrats control Washington, more American corporations will jump due to imposed tax increases. That is a legitimate argument, but those people who believe that are essentially naive about corporations and business.

American corporations don't see themselves as "American." Nowadays, every one of them is striving to be a "global" corporation that just happens to work out of America. They set up operations throughout the world through unpopular trade deals like NAFTA. Some Americans don't like it when corporations see themselves that way--what's with all this "global" nonsense? If they are "global", they may send their jobs off globally.

Politically, the economic situation in America comes down to two arguments: we're in this mess due to a) Big Corporation is shipping jobs overseas because they are just plain greedy (The Democrats' position) or b) because they are being taxed up the wazoo by socialist jerks (The Republicans' position). However, both of them miss the mark about the opportunities that could arise in a free market economy such as ours if many American corporation do decide to continue to put the squeeze on the American worker.

The fact is the American people could just create more corporations to compete with those who are jumping ship. Corporations are nothing more than just a bunch of investors. They can pull their money out or put their money in anytime they feel like it.

If the American people wanted to, they could stick it to corporations like GM, GE, Microsoft, IBM, Halliburton, Verizon, and all the rest who offshore by boycotting these corporations. The problem, however, is getting people to overcome their fears. They doubt themselves when they say, "How can we compete with McDonald's, or Nike, or WalMart? They are multi-billion dollar corporations?" That's true. But they always weren't. They all started out small.

So how can the American people fight back against outsourcing? Well, this is the beauty of a free market. Pool your money together and compete against the WalMarts, McDonalds and the GMs. Use the internet to create economic coalitions. I'll give an example. Let's take WalMart.

If you are worried that WalMart will destroy small businesses, use your tax base to buy a building near WalMart and sell only local products, something like a big flea and farmer's market. If successful, you could franchise the concept. But remember that that would take a serious community effort.

Americans nowadays feel as if they can't compete against the WalMarts of the world. So they think why bother.

This is the death nail. They have defeated themselves before even trying.

What is really stopping a coalition of concern Americans to create a brand new car company like GM?

Sometimes I just wonder about the spirit of the American people. Whether its just a farce or a media talking point.

I had an older brother growing up who would blame everything on "The White Man." Every time he didn't get the job he wanted, or was pulled over by police for speeding, or had conflicts with other whites and ended up not winning, he noted that his failures were a result of some vast "white man" conspiracy to keep him down. I would argue with him, for example, through the night: "Hey, it's not the white man's fault you're a loser." Then, he would try to strong-arm me.

When I hear right wingers say that the Main Stream Liberal Media is in the tank for Obama, or "The Liberals this, the liberals that," "The liberals are destroying this country," "The media has a liberal bias," "The liberal society is attacking our values," I think to myself, This sounds familiar. When I'm arguing with a right winger about their twisted interpretation of reality, I feel like I'm arguing with my brother and others like him.

Just as there are some blacks who believe that there is an all powerful abstract "White Man" that wants to keep blacks down, there are right wingers who believe there is an all powerful "Liberal" that is trying to keep them down.

These right wingers actually believe that cultural shifts in our society is the result of questionable values being perpetuated through TV, movies, and video games, and that the powers-that-be (i.e. those in the MSM) who promotes or push such deleterious products on us are doing it with the nefarious reason to destroy all right wing values.

These right wingers blame their pregnant teenage daughters for "The Liberal society", their gay son on "The Liberal media who says being gay is okay", their cheating spouse on "The Liberal books who says it is better to do what one feels", their job loss on "Liberal policies that favor minorities over qualified whites." The last one kills me. It always implies that minorities are never more qualified when compared to any other white person.

And like my brother, I see many of these angry, bitter right wingers as losers, and I am quite amazed how their anxieties, insecurities and feelings of self worth are exploited by conservative talk show hosts and writers. I am not a liberal, but every time I argue with a right winger and show him how his logic is flawed, I am often accused as one. He or she would walk off huffing, spewing, "You're just a liberal nut."

No, I just think critically. Listening to my brother for all these years, I have become attuned to twisted and dangerous psychosis--whether right wing or left.

Barack Obama is a stutterer. I've noticed this during the primaries in the debates with Hillary Clinton, and I'm surprised that no one in the media has picked up on it. I would have thought the late night comedians would make jokes about it, but they haven't, and in such a hot political season, I'd expected that the flood doors to be open.

However, it is not nice to make fun of people with speech impediments. We all learned in elementary school not to make fun of Stuttering Kenny. We've all seen the movies of bullies who yanked the underwear of kids who stuttered. It's just not politically correct.

I suspect that no one has mentioned it is because parents of stuttering kids would be outraged. Not only them, but the rage would spill over to many parents who have children whom people would classify as "special".

Stuttering is closely on the same plain as those who have a lisp, and it's not nice to notice lisps either.

Anyway, Obama must do something about this. I can only see it as a problem for voters who are trying to decide. Every time someone asks him a tough question or challenges him, he starts to stutter. It's not like Obama doesn't have an intelligent answer when he does answer, but during his struggle to overcome his impediment, his stuttering comes across as someone who is either lying, or trying to duck the question, or doesn't know his facts. Of course he is not lying or ducking and do know his facts, but the average voter who doesn't quite know him do make a mental note.

The Republicans have exploited this by claiming that Barack can't speak unless he has a teleprompter. And they say it in a way as if to mock him, to make him look like a robot, to imply that Barack Obama is not genuine when speaking to the American people. It is probably true that Barack Obama needs technical assistance or pre-written scripts when doing his public speeches. Most stutterers do. I believe he spends more time than most people practicing how to say his speech words comfortably enough that he can say them without stuttering which is why his speeches seem flawless. But once he finishes his speeches and takes questions from the audience, the stuttering is evident. And each time he does this, I can hear those right wing nuts say, "See, see, I told you, he doesn't know what he's talking about."
They began focusing more on the stutter than the actual substance of his words. It gives them an excuse just to dismiss Obama's answer altogether and that could be dangerous.

It's not right, but that's the world we live in. People with speech impediments have always had to struggle in our society. I can't imagine how Obama must feel about it while running for president.

In the military, particularly those in the Army, Marines, and Navy (not the Air Force, they have higher standards, and therefore only take a certain number each year), there is no surprise that a disproportionate of enlistees are from low-income areas. Regardless of the belief by some that people wanted to join the military to develop leadership qualities and improve self esteem, one fact of the matter is that many join for economic security. They essentially join because they know that they would receive a consistent paycheck and benefits that they know would not be available if they were in the private sector. Because this is the case, it is logical to conclude that in a political context, enlistees, military personnel and those who depend on military dollars will have no trouble supporting egregious funding for a military industrial complex.

In this political season, Obama has made it known that in order to fund his vision of a new "green" economy, the money has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is the military. He has said on the stump that he would support veterans, but some veterans with conservative leanings are skeptical.

Yet, they shouldn't be. The money from the military that Obama is speaking of is not the money needed to run the day to day operations of the military. It is the pork. The Bush administration shelled out billions in wasteful spending to companies who leeched on to military projects like parasites. This money, Obama believes, should be directed towards a better health care system and educational opportunities for veterans. Also, he wishes to use the money to assist those soldiers in transition to obtain the skills needed to participate in the green economy when those soldiers are released. Let's be honest, only a small percentage of enlistees actually retire from the military. Most enlistees do four years and that's it.

Obama's plan is similar to Bill Clinton's in the sense of how the money will be distributed. I remember when I was in the military during the early-90's, and the mantra during that time was "Fraud, Waste, and Abuse". The military was obsessed with controlling waste, even down to the toilet paper. My civilian supervisor would whine if I used too much paper, or lose too many pencils, or use too much ink. We were ordered to be succinct with memos, only the basics, no unnecessary rambling, which meant they were written of half-slices of paper. We were also given limited packs of paper every three months. If you ran out before the cycle, you were SOL and then written up. However, in the long run, it worked out fine. Frugality became a character trait.

With such a fairly solid military plan offered by Obama (no plan is pitch perfect) , what is the fear that continues to run through the veins of many right-wing, die-hard soldiers and sailors who out-and-out oppose him, even though his plan is in their best interest? And certainly a plan better than McCain's, if he has one.

The fear they have is simple: they don't really believe that they can compete in the private sector.

I noticed this when I was in the military. The people whom I worked with, if asked, were usually near or at the bottom of their class come high school graduation time. Some were ordered by the court to join the military. Very few were honor students. If you had been an honor student in school and was now in the military, you were most likely an officer. But the NCO's and enlistees were C and D students who felt they don't have the credentials or the smarts to go to college, to earn a degree, and to be hired by top private companies. They also don't believe they have the fortitude to run a small business either. They decided to settle for military life.

With Obama as president, they know that the economy will shift, which means more schooling or training. But for some absurd reason, many career right-wing veterans are resistant to book learning. They are just not good at it, which is one of the reasons they would try to demean college-educated people with words like "elitist", "egg-head", "arrogant" and for heaven's sake, "liberal".

Of course, I'm not speaking about all. There are some who do go to college, but those who stay in the military rarely get beyond an Associate's degree.

They also fear being trapped in cross purposes between the college-educated whom they feel inadequate against, or the immigrant crowd whose jobs for which most of them qualify for seems beneath them. This fear keeps them trapped in such a precarious middle. They question their identity, "Am I good enough?" when referring to the college crowd, and "Shouldn't I be better than them?" when it comes to the immigrant. So, instead of confronting these psychological truths, they hang on to the military where it is safe. They even get to a point where they convince themselves that the military was all they ever wanted and couldn't see themselves doing anything else. So they accept accusations of elitism about Obama, cast a spurge on his "soldier-killing, unpatriotic" plan, turn their ears toward Rush Limbaugh, and listen to rhetoric.

It is rather sad, though.

A few cities are implementing a pilot program that rewards students with cash if they get good grades or good scores on standardized tests. If I wasn't a such a gentlemen, I'd tell the directors of such programs to go climb a tree.

Paying children for good grades was an idea many schools had when I was a kid back in the 80's, and now the idea is coming up again. I guess life does repeat itself. And since its an issue that is repeating itself, then it appears that any issue that repeats itself was probably not a good idea to begin with. I mean if it had worked then, why isn't it around today. Why hadn't our local governments mandated paying students to get good grades?

In a PBS documentary, a child in the pilot program was asked about how she changed when she knew she would get money. The child said, "It made me want to do my work. I studied harder, and when I studied harder, I did good."

The problem I had with the whole set up was why in the hell was he getting a child's opinion? They don't know anything. You could have given him ice cream and cake instead of money, and the child would have answered the same way.

The programs are nothing more than a bribery scheme. And in the long term, children don't react positively to bribery.

Children are impressionable, and its sad that adults are relaying the message that there will be a monetary reward for any work that you do. These kids will grow up attaching money to everything. I can just imagine years later when the kid is 19, and you ask him, "Say, you want to go do some community clean-up?" And he'll say, "How much they paying?"

But one strange thing that this pilot program revealed was that low test scores are independent of whether a teacher is good or not. If a school district, or misguided conservative and liberal advocacy groups were to accuse failing schools on rotten teachers, the teachers could just say, "Well, if you paid the students enough, we wouldn't be going through this problem, now would we?" And the slippery slope begins.

I, myself, have always known that a student's low test scores generally had nothing to do with the teacher. It had more to do with the student's poor study habits, the belief that ALL knowledge comes from the teacher, straight up laziness and distorted values. Does paying someone money instantly change these things? I think not.

I made straight A's in middle school. My father didn't give me a dime for my school work. He congratulated me, but he figured that was what I was supposed to do. Did that stop me? No.

One argument from guilt-ridden parents to justify paying their child for good grades is that doing schoolwork is the child's job, and they should be compensated just like any other job. The problem I have is with the word "job." It is not a job to go to school to learn how to read, write and critically think. In household dynamics, it is a child's "role" as part of the family to do well in school. Roles are not jobs. Roles are things you expect each member of the house to do without incentive. It is a parent's role to feed, clothe and shelter children. It is the children's role to clean up once and awhile, cut the grass if needed, study, make good grades in school, and do whatever is asked of them to keep a functioning family, and that's all there is to it.

I will never pay my children for getting good grades in school, but I will have no trouble punishing them if they come home with C's, D's and F's.

I think American parents today have lost their minds when it comes to common sense in child rearing, which is why I think in our global economy, American children will continuously be left behind.

So once again, life is playing itself out like a Shakespearean drama.  The candidates for president have, of course, brought out some very vitriolic emotions, particularly those from the Republican side.  Obama's candidacy has forced some white Americans to deal with their freakish hostility, anxiety and resentment of the idea of a black man rising above his station.  It's no surprise that some in the McCain camp are using lesson #15 out of the Karl Rove political skewering handbook--when it comes to any minority candidate, use racial code words, and if anyone calls you out on it, just say they themselves were playing the race card by bringing it up.

I should have paid more attention in high school when I read Shakespeare, and now I see the plot of Othello unfolding before my very eyes.  The conservatives, and some old guard Democrats, are, what Maureen Dowd describes as, "pea-green envy of Obama."
The green eyed monster is rearing its evil head by the ads the McCain camp is putting out.  I mean, how obvious is it when McCain says things like "the news is in the tank for Obama."  McCain complained that they followed Obama all over the Middle East and Europe, yet no one came when he decided to go (even though he had been there a thousand times, which isn't newsworthy from a journalistic standpoint.).  Then, when 20,000 came out in Berlin to hear Obama speak, the McCain camp tried to make it seem like a photo-op.  When Obama's appearance was well received, the McCain camp immediately called him a "celebrity" and quipped, "Who cares if 20,000 Germans came out, they can't vote," neglecting the fact that Obama had attracted 20 fold that amount right here in America at his political rallies during the primaries.

Obama is the modern day Othello, taking shots from all sides (conservatives, bitter Hillary supporters, aging black civil rights leaders, etc.) who cannot believe that a practical unknown has a very good chance of being the leader of the free world.   I just hope the story doesn't end in a tragedy. 

Recently, some crackpot in Florida had stated he was going to assassinate Obama.  That little joke, as he described it, got him brought in for questioning by the secret service.

Now that it is August, and the conventions are near, I wonder what Shakespeare has prepared next in this drama.  Will Obama select a Desdemonia (a female running mate) for his v.p.?  Will McCain operatives try to sabotage that relationship like the bitter Iago?  Only time will tell.

So, I'm perusing the net, and I come across a video in which some crackpot interrupted an Obama townhall meeting by shouting across the gym that the crowd hadn't said the Pledge of Allegiance. The man was visually upset, but Obama played it cool and honored the man's request, despite boos from the audience. So in good ol' American fashion, knees-cracking, eyes rolling and with a heavy sigh, the crowd got up and put their hands over their hearts: "I pledge a allegiance..." Who the hell is this guy?

This video has already been discussed in the news, yet they only showed half of the story. What interested me was the other half. Someone from the Cleveland Plain Dealer recorded the crackpot's reaction afterwards to get his take on things. He ranted, pointing to everyone around him, "You all learn the pledge of allegiance in the first grade!..Your senator, your governor, nobody started this town hall meeting with the pledge of allegiance of the United States of America? You gotta be serious!...Don't disrespect that flag!...I'm sick of them disrespecting our flag! My dad fought in World War II!"

It's obvious this guy was a political operative, some far-right wing nut who wanted to give the media the impression that an Obama supporter was offended by his "lack of patriotism." He was probably the kind of guy who would go on conservative FOX News and say something like, "I supported Obama until I saw that. Now I just can't do it...And there are millions of Obama supporters like me who are fed up, which is why I set up a website for people like me who have switched to McCain. I've already have over 2 milliion subscribers."

The man's antics is an example of other right-wingers trying to get Obama to behave in a manner they think is "American." They cry about dumb stuff like, he doesn't wear an American pin, he doesn't eat apple pie, he doesn't say the Pledge, he doesn't shoot guns, he doesn't have a red, white and blue necktie, he doesn't have a picture of George Washington on his wall in his house.
How could you vote for this man?

The problem I have with an ultra-conservative goon like this man is that whenever you have a citizen who wears his patriotism on his sleeve, waving the American flag at every turn, he starts to look like a Nazi. Germany had flags all over the place in the 1930's and 40's, and we all know the history behind that.

I believe this man would go so far as to shoot an American with limited or broken English, or he was probably one of those guys who bought hundreds of American flags and tied them to his truck or planted them in his front yard after 9/11. Big dummy.

Guys like him have "gots to go." They vote on demogoguery--American demogoguery! And this country, which I love, can't afford right now the likes of him. He is divisive. A nincompoop. A charlatan.

We will see more of the likes of him if Obama is elected president. They will be foot soldiers for Rush Limbaugh and the crew, wearing combat boots and all, thrusting their arms straight out like the crowds did in Munich in 1939, but this time shouting "Made in America."

The Obama camp has just discovered that John McCain and his campaign manager have just been part of a deal that could result in the loss of thousands of jobs in the state of Ohio, a critical battleground state.  When asked about the deal, that involved a delivery company, McCain pretty much remained mute on the matter.  The Obama camp immediately put out a radio ad about the deal, and ever since, it has been a bug up McCain's behind.  The press in Cincinnati and Dayton markets have doggedly continue to ask about  his role in helping "foreign-owned DHL buy a U.S. company and gain control over the jobs that are now on the chopping block in Ohio."  

McCain has asked the Justice Department to  launch an investigation into DHL's plans to puts its packages aboard the planes of a rival, United Parcel Service. If that deal is to go through (with UPS flying its cargo out of Louisville, Kentucky) DHL's shipping hub in Wilmington, Ohio would be effectively closed, eliminating up to 10,000 jobs.  David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, has said that the revelation is a gold mine for them and that he will not only use the information in Ohio, but also in parts of Indiana and Pennsylvania.

The Obama camp said it would launch its assault on Monday.

Man, this is some good stuff here.  I always knew McCain was not the maverick he is describing himself to be.  He is what is wrong with Washington today.  Having been there 26 years, doesn't the man know how to keep his deals on the down low.

I have no problems with anyone who opposes Barack Obama, as long as their opposition is based on his policies and his vision, and not on rumors, distortions, personal attacks, misrepresentations, and cheap right wing talking points.  Reading some of the posts here, one of the main contentions regarding Obama is that he is not "qualified" to be president.  I seriously think,  what qualifications are these people looking for exactly? Whenever I ask, their criteria is either somewhat vacuous, or many would have no clear answer at all.  All they know is that they just "don't like him." 

So what really makes a person "qualified" to be president?  According to the Constitution, the only qualifications are to be at least the age of 35, a natural born citizen, and to have been a resident for fourteen years. If the Founding Fathers thought that was good enough, then who are these psycho right-wingers to place more abstract qualifications on a candidate?

But when they say "qualified", I know what they are really saying.  "Qualified" means to have been in Washington at least ten years, and during that time, to have taken money from lobbyists for at least two, to have been in the media's eye for at least five, and to some extent, to be white (but that's a whole other blog.) 

If right-wingers will take a historical perspective, any Senator, Supreme Court Judge, Governor or Congressman has the capacity to be President.  In the end, they are all lawyers. They all have been trained in the law for decades. 

What makes a good President is decision-making, and one doesn't have to be on a job for a supposed number of years in order to have good judgment, make good decisions, or have better ideas for the country.  You either have it or you don't.  And Bush never had it.  It was like he got his job through a white man's affirmative action program: initially, through his name and not his decision making.  Ultimately, he reverted to fear with the Iraq War.  And honestly, McCain doesn't have it either.  Come the fall when the presidential debates will unfold, the country will see Obama and the Democrats wipe the floor with McCain and his Republican goons.
McCain, regardless of his so called "straight-talk express", cannot defend his record in front of a national audience. It is well documented and indefensible for him to explain how he voted for Bush's failed policies more than 90% of the time, that he has more NO VOTES than any other Senator in the Senate, that despite the fact he is going around trying to convince people that he is for a new energy paradigm, he opposed all major alternative energy bills since he's been a Senator.  But I digress...I'm getting off point.

If one were to go back to past Presidents, there would be plenty of Presidents who wouldn't be "qualified" according to some of these right wing nuts.  Abraham Lincoln only served two years in the House of Representatives from Illinois's 7th congressional district before he became President (a Republican no less!).  William Henry Harrison only served two years as a Senator from Ohio and a congressmen only one year before being president.  Theodore Roosevelt was only governor of New York one year, and Vice President one year before he ascended to the presidency.  So all this "qualification" jazz just doesn't pass the historical litmus test. 

However, what each man had in common was that people liked them, and that is why they voted for him.  And that is what average Joe American votes on.  If people like you and see that you are intelligent, thoughtful, organized, have better ideas, then they will vote for you, and that is why Obama has the advantage over McCain.  Some Republicans are just so blinded by their ideological prejudices that there is nothing Obama can do to assuage their concerns.  "Not qualified" is their excuse  to demonize for the sake of demonizing.  They really don't care about the country, they just want to win.  And while they are playing politics with mud slinging, innuendoes, and ad-hominems
for the sole purpose of winning an election, basically "screwing with people's future", it is the little man that is getting the boot.