Vote Smart: Politics in Oklahoma by Guest Blogger, Kelley Haraughty

Midwest City, Oklahoma falls within Oklahoma’s 4^th Congressional District. The Senators for Oklahoma are Senator James “Jim” Inhofe and Senator Thomas Coburn. The U.S. Representative for the 4^th District is Representative Tom Cole.  The following synopsis defines each politician by their respective biographies, campaign contributors and financing, their voting records on specific issues and their various supporting interest groups. Included in this post will be my personal reasons as to why I like and dislike each, and why I would or would not vote for the current Senators and Representative.

Senator James “Jim” Inhofe

Senator Jim Inhofe is a Republican Senior Senator that has held his senate seat since January 1, 1994. He is a native of Des Moines, Iowa and was born November 17, 1934. Senator Inhofe attended public schools for his primary and secondary education in Tulsa, Oklahoma where he continued on to the University of Tulsa, graduating with the TU class of 1973 with a Bachelor’s degree in economics.  After serving in the U.S. Army for two years in the late 1950’s, Senator Inhofe had a career as the President of Quaker Life Insurance Company. He has been active in politics since 1967 and has held the positions in the Oklahoma State House of Representatives, the OK State senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. Inhofe had one unsuccessful run at Governor of Oklahoma in 1974 and served as the mayor of Tulsa, Oklahoma from 1978-1984. He served in Congress from 1987 to 1994; he resigned his position in Congress when he was elected to the U.S. Senate to replace Senator David L. Boren. He took his seat in November of 1994 and has been reelected in 1996, 2002, and 2008 for the term ending in January 2015. He has served as a senior member on both the Committee on Environment and Public Works for two congressional terms as well as the Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee. Inhofe has been married for 54 years to his wife, Kay. They have a total of twenty children and grandchildren.

The majority of Senator Inhofe’s campaign funding comes from the Oil & Gas and Electric Utilities industries. The remainder is funded by retiree contributors, leadership PACs and Lobbyists. Among his top supporters are Koch Industries and Exxon Mobil, receiving more than $1.9 million dollars in political campaign contributions from the coal and oil industry. Senator Inhofe is an extreme right wing, Republican conservative. In 2013 Inhofe was ranked by National Journal magazine as one of the five most conservative members of the U.S. Senate.  He is anti-abortion, pro-outsourcing U.S. farming resources from foreign countries, and votes consistently against taxes to pay for education. His stand on the energy crisis is that the U.S. should continue mining coal and fossil fuels, and increase the use of nuclear energy as an alternative.  Inhofe believes that environmental regulations restrict the freedoms of Americans and that without environmental regulations we as a nation would have a stronger economy and a stronger national defense. Senator Inhofe does not believe in climate change, nor does he support President Obama’s recent $3 billion dollar pledge to address climate change nor what actions to take to reduce or reverse this worldwide crisis that doesn’t exist, comparing the Environmental Protection Agency to “the Gestapo” and adamantly claims that global warming is “a hoax.”  Inhofe is also anti-Obamacare, stating that government has no place in the relationship between citizens and their healthcare providers – healthcare providers which 22% of all Oklahomans currently do not have, according to the latest U.S. Census Bureau statistics. 

What I like about Senator Jim Inhofe: I agree somewhat on his stance on abortion; I, too am against it except in the case of rape or incest or if the mother’s health is at risk. His anti-abortion views include outlawing abortion even in the above mentioned circumstances. That is where the similarities end. I find nothing likeable about small minded ignorance. 

What I dislike about Senator Jim Inhofe: I strongly disagree that climate change is “a hoax” when the overwhelming majority of environmental scientists agree that fossil fuels and emissions are contributing to human-caused global warming and is endangering our natural resources. The fact that Senator Inhofe claims that his stance on the non-existence of climate change is backed by “scientists” is the real hoax.

I also have a problem with any person, politician or otherwise, that sits at either extreme. Senator Inhofe’s career is fueled by the fact that he is so far to the right he’s nearly off the graph. To me this is indicative of a small and very closed mind, and not someone I put a lot of faith in when it comes to making decisions for me, my family and fellow Oklahomans.

Would I vote for Senator Inhofe? Not on your life.  Small minds and closed thinking are what will keep Oklahoma in the dark ages, i.e. less educated and less informed than the rest of the world.

Senator Thomas Coburn

Senator Thomas Coburn is a Republican Junior Senator and has been since November 2, 2004. Senator Coburn is a graduate of Oklahoma State University with a degree in accounting and is a member of the First Baptist Church of Muskogee. In 1968 he married his wife Carolyn, a former Miss Oklahoma pageant winner. The two have three children and seven grandchildren. Senator Coburn is also a Medical Doctor of Ophthalmology. He is anti-abortion and anti-taxation for the purposes of education and the Arts. He is a believer in the conspiracy in Washington that creates “secret” new programs and “secret” funding. Coburn has blocked more bills than any other senator in the spirit of saving taxpayers billions of dollars in secretly approved spending.

The majority of Senator Coburn’s funding comes from health professionals, the oil and gas industry, leadership PACs, the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical/health product industry. Among these contributors is Koch Industries. 49% of Coburn’s political funding comes from large individual contributions; 37% from PAC contributions; 6% from small individual contributions and 7% from “other.”  Interest groups include industries of health, oil and gas, big pharma, a Republican and Conservative Club, the insurance industry, big bankers, lawyers and lobbyists. Special Interest organizations include Koch Industries, Bank of America and Abbott Laboratories.

What I like about Senator Thomas Coburn: I agree somewhat with his stance on abortion, favoring adoption instead although I do believe abortion is justified in the case of rape, incest or if the mother’s life is endangered. Other than that, we agree on nothing.

What I dislike about Senator Thomas Coburn: I dislike the fact that he openly accuses the government of secret conspiracies and that he makes a platform out of convincing voters that these conspiracies are costing them billions of dollars. It would be laughable, except he has a record of voting against education bills as well as funding of the arts, two things I think are vital to the well-being, education and intellect of society. America is already at a cultural deficit when compared to Europe, Asia and other countries and mindsets such as Coburn’s are only making that deficit worse.

Would I vote for Senator Coburn?  Not if Satan himself was on the ballot. I cannot and will not support any politician who is anti-woman, anti-immigration, anti-equality, anti-education and anti-common sense.

Representative Tom Cole

Congressman Tom Cole, a Republican, was elected to his current position in Congress in 2002. He is currently in his sixth term. Senator Cole has a Bachelor of Arts degree in History from Grinnell College, a Masters from Yale University and a PhD from the University of Oklahoma, both in British History.  He has also studied abroad and has been a Fulbright Fellow as well as a Thomas Watson Fellow at the University of London. Representative Cole has been called one of “the sharpest minds in Congress.”  Representative Cole is also a member of the Chickasaw Nation, and is one of just two documented Native Americans in Congress; the other is Markwayne Mullin, Cole’s fellow Oklahoman. Cole was a college history and politics professor before beginning his long career as a politician.  Representative Cole’s mother Helen Te Ata served as a state senator and representative also.

Representative Cole’s voting record in the nine years he’s been a House member shows strong favoritism to free trade, the military, gun rights, war veterans and Native American issues. He is also in favor of less restrictive immigration laws and is opposed to unlimited campaign funding. He has consistently voted against lobbies for labor unions, senior citizens and teachers’ unions.

What I like about Representative Tom Cole:  I respect Tom Cole for being a well-educated person, and I think it’s cool that he is Native American. Native American issues don’t get the attention they deserve and while it will take more than one man to change things, at least he’s in there trying. I also appreciate his willingness to be more reasonable about immigration reform than most of his Republican constituents and I agree that unlimited campaign fundraising tips the scales too far in favor of rich, Caucasian males. 

What I don’t like about Representative Tom Cole: I was surprised to find that he is against unions. Unions exist to protect the working class, many of whom are of Native American descent in Oklahoma. I also dislike that he is against teachers’ unions. Teachers already get a raw deal even with the unions in place. I can imagine how it would get worse for teachers if the unions were not there scrounging for every cent and resource. 

Would I vote for Representative Tom Cole?  I’m on the fence about Cole. I guess it would depend on who he was running against.  If it were a race between Tom Cole and Jim Inhofe, for example, my vote would definitely be for Representative Cole. Ultimately I would like to see the leadership in Oklahoma shift to a less-radical right wing agenda and actually start making decisions that positively affect Oklahomans and not just the political agendas of a few.

 About the Author: Kelley Haraughty is a freshman at Rose State College in Midwest City, Oklahoma. She is majoring in Business Administration.  Kelley has lived in Midwest City for the majority of her life. Her interests outside of school include photography, cosmetology and her Rottweiler, Mia.

Made in the USA: Are We Ready?

How many people do you know that have been affected by outsourcing jobs to other countries? The actual number may shock you. Long before “outsourcing” became a buzz word, the US had been doing it since the 1950’s. It started with small things, like electrical parts and manufacturing in the US back then was booming so no one really felt the loss when companies started purchasing small amounts of components made outside the US. No one ever dreamed that one day “Made in the USA” could ever be eradicated. Fast forward to today: manufacturing is dead in the United States. The unemployment rate is 6.3%, which is better than in recent years but still reflects the fact that millions of Americans are out of work or have given up trying to find it.

When Steve Jobs, founder of CEO of Apple, Inc. was still alive, President Barack Obama asked him what it would take to make iPhones here in the US instead of China. Jobs laughed and said “that would never happen.” To Steve Jobs and countless CEOs just like him, it boiled down to the bottom line. Since manufacturing as an industry has been long dead here, it would take countless hours/weeks/years (read: dollars) to build the plants, forge the materials needed and train workers to produce an iPhone quickly enough to keep up with technological advances. Apple’s profits would be horribly slashed, albeit temporarily, if they were to stop making iPhones in China and start making them here, and corporate greed wins that fight with a TKO.

So a handful of American companies have recently decided to take the risk and have their product (textiles, in this case) made in the USA. In a not-so-ironic twist, they are finding of all things a labor shortage! Well, what else could be expected? A handful of companies with their hearts in the right place aren’t going to reverse the sixty year decline in American manufacturing overnight. What needs to be revived in the USA is the Spirit of Manufacturing we once had. The pride we felt in the products we made ourselves instead of the sharp sting we have in our consciences now whenever we see a Made in China sticker on the item we just bought. We need a Warren Buffet or a Bill Gates to combine resources and spearhead a revitalization movement, starting from the ground up. Advertise, get some solid PR campaign going and aim to inspire people to WANT manufacturing here again. The handful of companies that have already started is small, but it’s a start. It would be the start of something big if it could just gather enough steam to get over that first big hill. Will it be difficult? Yes. Expensive? At first, yes. Labor costs in Mexico is an average of $3-$10 an hour, and in China some places are paying up to $12 per hour (though rarely). The US would have to pay similar wages to remain competitive. It would take some adjustments, yes, but it is something we must do. I know if we could just light that spark in the hearts of Americans, we would have no shortage of people wanting to be trained for manufacturing jobs.  Already statistics show that six million American jobs rely on trade with Mexico, proof that there is a way to fairly import and export without harming our own economy. Our import/export rate with China is significantly under-balanced, however, and has created a gaping deficit in our economy, an unhealthy dependence on Chinese imports as well as declining quality of life for US citizens.

My grandfather was an aeronautical engineer for more than 40 years. After he retired he would often be found tinkering in his shop with one thing or another. In his shop were parts and pieces of old things he had kept over the years thinking they would one day be of use. As I was rummaging through these things, I noticed that on every piece I picked up was printed MADE IN USA. Old but still functioning light switches, a Swingline stapler (from 1960 and still working), a door bell button, even pencils tucked in amongst the parts said MADE IN USA. None of the parts were "disposable," which explains my grandfather's reasoning for keeping them. They were all made to last, unlike the garbage we get from China by the boat load every day.  I want that kind of productivity back for our country. Our economy would be so much healthier if manufacturing were to become alive again. It’s something worth considering.

Question of the day: What can I do, personally, to bring back the "Made In USA" manufacturing spirit to this country?

Hyper Vigilance: Dangerous?

Vigilance Defined
Vigilance is, as defined by Webster’s, “1. Keenly watchful to detect danger; wary; and 2. Ever awake and alert; sleeplessly watchful.” Hyper vigilance is an even more acute state of being super aware, to the point where nothing else in life matters. When someone is hyper vigilant about someone or something, that person does not and cannot think of or do anything else but stand guard and on the lookout for what they fear the most, whether that is a person, or event, or group such as the government or the authorities.

Hyper Vigilance and Mental Illness
Hyper vigilance is a common symptom of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). People suffering from PTSD have been so traumatized by an event or series of events that they become hyper vigilant about detecting future events of the same kind as if they could prevent it from happening. It is the fear of the traumatic event happening to them again that keeps them on constant lookout, often times to the point of paranoia. People living with PTSD are not the only patients who are hyper vigilant about certain things. One of the symptoms of Bipolar Disorder is a heightened sense of anxiety during the manic part of the manic depressive cycle. This hyper mania can go hand in hand with hyper vigilance, particularly in cases where the patient’s Bipolar Disorder is not well controlled by medication. Another group of patients that suffer the same symptoms are those living with Social Anxiety Disorder. They live in constant fear of being socially ostracized or embarrassed to the point that they become hyper vigilant about staying inside their homes, too traumatized to risk being humiliated in public. This degree of anti-social behavior is all anxiety and fear based, and can be especially prevalent if the symptoms of the underlying mental illness are not being treated properly with medication.

Hyper Vigilance and Drug Abuse
Another category of patients in which hyper vigilance is present are those whose brains have been fed mind-altering drugs. Cocaine, crack cocaine and meth are some examples of drugs that can cause or worsen hyper vigilant behavior. People suffering from addiction to these drugs are often hyper vigilant as a side effect, i.e. keeping their drugs hidden, obtaining drugs for future use and avoiding detection or arrest for possession by law enforcement. Drug addicts often exhibit this hyper awareness to extreme levels, to the point of sheer fear and paranoia. This hyper awareness is partially an effect of the drug itself, and partly in the mind of the user which is used to being fed the drug and cannot bear the thought of having to live without it. Drug users are shackled by addiction and make nearly every decision based on whether they can get high again or not.

Hyper Vigilance and Violence
Someone who is obsessed with guns and violence can be susceptible to hyper vigilance, to the point that they have convinced themselves that it is their duty to carry out certain tasks. They are convinced that because they have access to a weapon that it is their responsibility to be on “the lookout” for threats. The threat could be the government, or law enforcement, or even people of other races. In recent events, a young African American male named Treyvon Martin was targeted, shot and killed by a man named George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman was part of his “neighborhood watch,” and took that position to the extreme by carrying a gun. He was showing signs of hyper vigilance when he targeted the unarmed teenaged Treyvon Martin, confronted him, shot and killed the boy who had nothing on him but a package of Skittles. George Zimmerman was allowed to walk, having convinced a jury that he shot only in self-defense. Zimmerman has been arrested and detained more than once since Treyvon’s death for domestic violence and threatening to shoot his female partner. People with a propensity for violence believe that acting on hyper vigilant impulses is their right and their duty, but the reality is that this attraction to violence and violent behavior is an illness in itself. This is where the term “vigilante” comes from. George Zimmerman is every bit a hyper vigilant narcissist, a vigilante, and accused of being a racist one at that.

Treating Hyper Vigilance
Being in a hyper state of mind of any kind is highly uncomfortable for the patient. It is often the cause of agitation, insomnia, panic attacks, heart attacks, hypertension, and the list goes on. Adding drugs or homelessness or poverty into the equation puts both the patient and potential victims at risk. The public’s awareness of mental illness is very poor. There is a staunch stigma attached to mental illness in this country to the point that people who are suffering are quietly shunned, ignored, and swept under the rug by the system when they come seeking help. We should want people who are suffering to come out and ask for help. We should be willing to do what it takes to get them help. But if they are too scared of being locked up or mistreated or not empathized with then they will never trust in the system to help them. What they will do is continue to make news headlines. Did you know that on average there has been one school shooting per week since the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut? Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter who killed twenty children and six teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School was suffering from mental illness, as was his mother with whom he lived and from whom he obtained the guns used in the shootings. There have been so many school shootings and mass murders in the last year that the FBI is training teachers defense tactics to protect the children in their care. Companies are selling products like bullet proof backpacks and Kevlar mats for children to take to school to be more protected. The violence is out of control, or as President Obama has stated, “violence (school shootings and mass murders) have become the norm.” Andrew Solomon wrote an article recently for the New Yorker titled The Reckoning that brings to light the role that mental illness played in these acts of violence, and reiterates why it is so important to address mental illness proactively and constructively and getting people the help they need before tragedy strikes. If you or someone you know is showing signs of hyper vigilance, you have a responsibility to pay attention to that as a possible warning sign. Do they show other signs of mental dysfunction? Are they anxious about every day, non-threatening things? Do they talk obsessively about defending themselves against a known or unknown attacker? These are all signs that there could be an underlying mental illness that may manifest itself in hyper vigilant behaviors. People who are mentally ill are the most difficult to get treatment for, because ironically, a symptom of many mental illnesses is believing that the patient is the normal one and that everyone else is sick or out to get them.

What is America Doing to Protect You?
The Obama administration, the President himself, has sworn, given his word that he and the US government are going to do whatever it takes to address the topic of mental illness and its relationship to mass violence. One measure that has been taken is the mental health parity act in which the Affordable Care Act (ACA aka Obamacare) is addressing mental health with renewed energy and resources. The goal of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) is to make certain that anyone diagnosed with a mental health or addiction has the opportunity to receive the same insurance and health care benefits as any other non-psychiatric disease or disorder. Before the MHPAEA, doctors’ visits and copays were different or limited to a certain number of visits per year, making the treatment of those with mental illness more complicated than any other type of illness. The MHPAEA along with the ACA is paving an easier road for patients with mental illness, making it easier than ever to seek and get reliable care for their illness. This was a giant step forward for Healthcare in the US.

How to React to Hyper Vigilance
If you are close to someone exhibiting signs of hyper vigilance, it could be a warning that something deeper is wrong with them. If they are mentally ill and not receiving treatment, or abusing drugs, be warned, they could be dangerous. But turning a blind eye and doing nothing is not the answer. There are hotlines you can call if you or someone you are close to needs help. These hotlines are listed on HealthyPlace.com and help is readily available. Services are provided by such organizations as NAMI, the National Alliance of Mental Illness and MHA, Mental Health America just to name a few. And they are listed by State which makes finding assistance for you or someone you know even easier. These hotlines are meant to be a safe place to call. The professionals on the other end of the line are dedicated to helping anyone and everyone who needs mental health support and care, without stigma, or judgment. Many of the resources they provide are free of charge for those without insurance or who cannot pay. The Obama administration has promised to and has made great strides and progress when it comes to addressing and caring for the mental health of US citizens. Getting help has never been easier, and you may be saving someone’s life by taking action. It is something to consider.

Immigration Reform: Return on Investment for US- Obamanos!

Can immigration reform really benefit the U.S. economically?  Some think it can. Here are a few ideas about reform and how, if implemented, they could fiscally impact and benefit this country.

Company Sponsored Green Cards
Currently on the table in Congress is the option to give companies the ability to sponsor their undocumented workers in getting a Green Card.  This is part of the Pathway to Citizenship movement.  Reducing the number of undocumented workers means more working people paying taxes.  Not that undocumented workers don’t pay taxes – they do; just not as much as the rest of us.  In the state of Connecticut alone, $30 million dollars in taxes went uncollected because immigration reform has not yet passed.  The current U.S. deficit could potentially be reduced by $175 billion over the next ten years through adjustments to guest worker initiatives among other measures in the bill.

Student Visas
Another point on the Pathway to Citizenship is the option to allow foreign students with student visas to remain in the U.S. on Green Card status after graduation to become tax paying workers.

Public Housing
Under current Federal law, a low-income family qualifies for HUD housing benefits if at least one person living there is a U.S. citizen.  This usually means a family where the parents are illegal immigrants but have a U.S. born child living with them.  In a U.S. Cost Study done by FairUS.org, it is estimated that as much as three percent of all low income housing benefits are given to families with immigrant parents and at least one U.S. born child.  HUD’s budget in 2010 was in the tens of billions of dollars; three percent is significant.  The problem with this scenario is that Federal taxes pay for programs such as HUD but undocumented workers do not contribute to Federal taxes.  If more illegal immigrants were allowed to become tax paying citizens, the cost to fund this program would be more equally shared among U.S. citizens.  Further, as documented workers, some may be able to afford regular housing and not need HUD assistance in the first place.

Gainful Employment
Typically, undocumented workers are forced to take whatever work they can get.  This often is very low paying work with no health benefits and certainly no child care or retirement benefits.  Under the current Federal plan, illegal immigrants are eligible for Public Assistance Programs such as the Free and Reduced Meal Program, Temporary Assistance of Needy Families, Child Care and Development Fund and Housing Assistance Programs.  The annual budget last year for these federal welfare benefits for illegal aliens was $4.6 billion dollars.  Being able to live and work as a citizen of the U.S. would not only make them eligible for higher paying jobs, but also reduce their need for these federal welfare benefit programs altogether.  It would not be instantaneous, but over time with gainful, legal employment, the estimated 11 million undocumented workers or immigrants-turned-citizens would be transformed into contributors, i.e., economic gains in growth, tax revenues, earnings, jobs and consumerism, rather than merely recipients of tax-payer funded government assistance.


So it all boils down to money?  Well, to some, yes.  But Immigration Reform along with the Pathway to Citizenship offers so much more than higher pay for immigrants.  It means access to the other freedoms we all enjoy as citizens of the United States.  A recent poll by CNN shows the majority of Americans are in support of allowing undocumented immigrants the ability to stay in the U.S. and apply for citizenship.  If we can trust the statistics, 11 million undocumented immigrants-turned-citizens would be able to contribute the same as you and I in many ways, not just fiscally.

Outsourcing: Are Labor Unions to Blame?

After reading my post on Outsourcing, my good friend Diane asked where I thought labor unions fit into the picture, and whether or not I thought they perhaps had “gone too far.”  Great question.  Here are my thoughts on the matter.

                The purpose of a labor union is to safeguard the rights and working conditions of our American workforce. (http://www.howstuffworks.com/labor-union.htm) Put in place during the American Revolution, Unions regulated the working environments: making factories safer; setting minimum wage requirements; preventing children from being exploited.  Basically, Unions protected the people from being taken advantage of by employers.  As you can imagine, this quickly became a thorn in the employers’ sides- with unions now demanding fairness on the behalf of  the employees, suddenly this leveled the playing field.  Frankly, the only people that would have been upset about being regulated are probably those who were profiting the highest by taking unfair advantage the most.  Factory owners who were already treating people fairly would not have had much to complain about.  In fact, those of us who make it a habit of looking out for our fellow (wo)man are likely to be in support of rights groups such as labor unions.

                Do I think labor unions pushed too hard, thus “forcing” U.S. manufacturers to go outsource their operations overseas?  Absolutely not.  If anything, the same greed that made labor unions necessary in the first place is still alive and well; now U.S. manufacturers have figured out how to get around those pesky regulations like minimum wage and human rights issues- by building factories in countries where unions don’t exist!   I can hear it now, “so it’s the unions’ fault our jobs went overseas!”  No.  This is what I was referring to in my original article as the need for Protectionism.  It is also in part what is fueling the Occupy Movement in this country.  When big business makes profitting more important than people, the only winner is big business.  Such is the case today, and it’s out of control.  A very slim percentage of people are amassing multi-million and billion dollar fortunes by taking advantage of tax loopholes in this country, and human rights loopholes in foreign countries.  Either way you look at it, it is still wrong for industry to profit at the demise of the consumer, or in this case, the worker.  It boils down to greed. How rich does Apple need to be?  Their profits every year are in the Billions.  Who benefits from this?  And on whose backs are those fortunes made?  Today it is desperate Chinese factory workers who don’t have the protection of labor unions.  Is this better for profits?  You bet!  But is it RIGHT?  Does the end justify the means?  In my opinion it does not. 

 

Chinese factories have now installed suicide prevention nets around the buildings because so many people there are in such a state of mental anguish they simply can’t bear another day of the abuse.  This abuse is being driven by us, Diane- it’s a machine. Consumers demand products.  Manufacturers supply those products.  Demand goes up, and manufacturers seize the opportunity to capitalize on the demand.  Ten percent profit seems good, until cutting a corner turns it into 20%.  Then cutting another corner turns it into more profits.  Ad campaigns create a buzz, making us want the next gadget, newer, sleeker, faster- the manufacturer is no longer happy with 50% profit margins and sees he can double, triple, quadruple his profits by taking production overseas to China.  More factories see how it’s being done and follow suit, and pretty soon nothing is being made in America any more, the manufacturing sector of our workforce has nearly ceased to exist as a result, and people in less developed areas of the world desperate for work are willing to put up with the abuse in exchange for jobs making our gadgets. The American economy suffers as a result, with the 99% getting poorer, while the 1% is getting fatter.  This is a dangerous imbalance, and is why so many of us are crying foul.  This is why the playing field must be leveled again, this time on a global scale.  And while that’s going to piss some rich people off, it still is the right thing to do.

                Protecting the well-being of another person, particularly when that person is at a lesser advantage than you are, is never a bad thing.  Labor unions are absolutely not to blame when it comes to the issue of outsourcing of American jobs.  American workers demand a certain standard when it comes to working environments and I believe they have every right to do so, to be treated humanely, to be paid fairly, and to be kept out of harm’s way while doing their jobs.  Demanding fairness is not wrong.  But denying it is.