Jingoistic nationalism does nothing for me. I don't want to "compete" with the world.

[scarletwoman]

I don't give a damn about being "#1", all I want is to live in a country where the inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a reality for all citizens.

We have been exceedingly blessed to live on this particular land mass -- a geographical location of unparalled bounty, spanning climate zones from semi-tropical to northern boreal.

We can grow an enormous amount of food on this land -- more than enough to never be subject to famine within our borders. We are blessed with just about every natural resource needed for the manufacture of all the tools and products conducive to providing a comfortable life for all our citizens.

We could all have enough, enough to live much better than bare survival, enough to raise healthy children, enough to pursue our own individual paths toward happiness, if only those for whom there will never be enough weren't given free rein to control and dominate the rest of us.

The pathologically greedy among us are given every concession, every benefit in our current system. WE, the ordinary citizens, don't need to compete with China and India, we could do fine if our government simply focused on making use of all the bounty of our land to take care of our own people.

Competition is a destructive paradigm. I would far prefer economic sovereignty and self-sufficiency, and cooperation and community-building within our borders.

It's a vision that was completely absent from last night's SOTU. And we are egregiously impoverished by that absence.

sw

[mike_c]

1. the K and the R, but your comments so eloquently echo my own thoughts...

...that I must add :applause:.

[scarletwoman]

6. Thank you. I felt very sad last night. Nothing about poverty, nothing about how many U.S. citizens

are suffering from job losses and foreclosures. It was all about dominance -- dominance for whom?

The paradigm of dominance got us into this mess, it surely won't get us out.

sw

[Safetykitten]

11. So did I. Where was the defense of our people that are needing help?

[scarletwoman]

14. Well, in the glorious New World Order of our Plutocrat Overlords, THEY decide who is worthy

of concern.

Lots of people are unworthy in this New World.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Green_Lantern]

179. he did mention jobs you just don't like the solutions offered...

Handing out money and putting people in crappy jobs isn't the solution for lack of jobs for skilled workers.

[scarletwoman]

202. You're right. I didn't like the solutions offered.

Actually, I didn't hear any real solutions at all.

For example, why do we export whole trees to other countries who then sell us back plywood and other pulpwood products? Why aren't we making value-added products from our own trees right here?

What's missing in the current paradigm is any sort of concerted focus on giving U.S. workers the opportunity to engage in work that's sustainable and self-supporting -- using the resources available right here.

Clear-cutting the Tongass Forest provides a few jobs for the chainsaw wielders, and enormous profits for the lumber companies. But once the forest is gone, only the Owners will be sitting on any of the wealth that this resource represented. The chainsaw wielders will be out of work, and the ecosystem will be out another piece of life-sustaining biosphere.

What if, instead of allowing the pillaging of our country's natural wealth for the profit of the few, we promoted labor-intensive practices such as selective cutting in forests, and value-added industries -- such as furniture making -- that would employ even more workers with no expiration date on how long they could continue to engage in this work?

[Green_Lantern]

225. you sure argue out of both sides of your mouth

You want us to exploit more of our natural resources here but also preserve more of our resources. We can't do both.

I'm more in favor of using artificial material.

[scarletwoman]

232. I don't think you bothered to read what I actually said.

You have simply decided to argue no matter what.

Maybe you aren't aware of the fact that there is an existing practice of selective cutting in forests that enormously differs from the practice of clear cutting. As I said, it's more labor intensive, which means not only a more sustainable use of a natural resource but a more sustainable means of employment for the workers in that industry.

Do you object to careful husbandry of both natural resources and employment for the working class?

Your remark, "I'm more in favor of using artificial material." is something of a non sequitur. What, exactly, are these "artificial materials" made out of? Petroleum products? Is not oil also a natural resource?

As far as I know, no one has found a way to create matter from nothing. Whatever is made is made from something that already exists on this earth in one form or another. And whatever already exists on earth is, ergo, a natural resource.

My position is really very simple - let us use the earth's natural resources in a sustainable way, and in a way that provides for the real needs of the human population. Let us look to promote individual human dignity and freedom above all.

sw

[Safetykitten]

2. What a fantastic post.

[scarletwoman]

8. Thank you.

:)

[Bonobo]

3. Scarletwoman, you have always understood.

Competing with the rest of the world for economic dominance, as they put it, has no relation to the only things that really matter. How we are treated in this country wrt health and safety.

America has broken the implicit contract that exists with its citizens. It takes the sweat of their labor and returns very little by way of health and safety measures.

It is why I have found greener pastures where health, personal safety and community are more valued.

[scarletwoman]

12. "It takes the sweat of their labor and returns very little by way of health and safety measures."

Thank you for saying that so well!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

88. You're lucky to be able to get a spousal visa

I actually considered making the move in 2003, but I didn't meet the requirements for any of the visas.

[Bonobo]

185. I am lucky and...

I am becoming a Japanese citizen this year. I'm sorry to hear that you didn't meet the VISA requirements... :(

[Art_from_Ark]

196. You couldn't get any type of visa for Japan?

I've known a few people who started out teaching English and the got permanent employment and eventual permanent residency that way...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

207. Yes, but it's hard for people over 40

e.g. me, to get a first job teaching English. I was getting the "we prefer younger people" routine from the places I inquired at.

I'm WAY over 40.

[Art_from_Ark]

215. Oh, yeah, I forgot about that

Those English schools do seem to prefer the "under 40 crowd".

[Enthusiast]

93. Plus one!

The 'general welfare' now only applies to the wealthy and powerful.

[RandomThoughts]

4. Part of it is they want to lower population.

And think that hardship can help do that.

That is actually much of the problem.

[chillspike]

5. Amen

Why should humans compete with each other at all?

[sulphurdunn]

211. Especially with online dating

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

7. You don't? Well, I do.

But only in inconsequential, for-fun things like sports.

[socialist_n_TN]

28. Yep. That would be enough competition for me................

I prefer the cooperation model for life myself.

[TheKentuckian]

9. Pretty awesome post.

[Peace Monger]

10. oh but you see, therein lies the rub,

where would we make our war?


outstanding post scarletwoman

[scarletwoman]

25. Thank you. And welcome to DU.

I'm all for more peace mongers here. :D

[Green_Lantern]

182. it's not peace...it is fear..

People AFRAID to take part in the world and afraid of what the future holds.

[jonnyblitz]

15. great post!

:hi:

[Wind Dancer]

16. Beautifully written!!!

Kick and recommended!

[scarletwoman]

47. Thank you. (nt)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. But..but..the rat race is is wholesome and someday you might have more stuff than other people.

And, then you might even be happy and say whoopee! before you die.

[warren pease]

19. Remember, even if you win the rat race...

...you're still a rat.

wp

[scarletwoman]

33. As old as I am now, what I most sincerely wish is to have LESS stuff.

I love my books, and my few pieces of art that speak to my soul. But, other than that, all I really need are a few pots and pans and eating utensils, a broom, a snow shovel, a chair, a table, a dresser, and a bed.

And my computer, of course. :)

[ThatPoetGuy]

18. Strongly disagree.

Suppose I invent a better kind of air conditioner. I need lawyers, a team, offices. I need factories, manufacture, distribution. I can hire ten thousand Americans, give them good union jobs, and those ten thousand can afford to go out to dinner twice a week, which keeps hundreds of restaurants from closing. The restaurants can pay their staff, and pay for advertising, and pay their rent or mortgage. The loop gets wider and wider, and everyone in this loop can afford a vehicle, food, shelter.

But suppose instead that invention is made in a country that doesn't have a minimum wage. Suppose labor laws make it so their workers bring home two dollars a day, and children go to work at age seven and work 84 hours a week. The profits of that industry go almost completely to the owner and the upper echelons; it doesn't revitalize an economically depressed community when there are no labor laws or economies of scale (unions) to enforce a living wage.

American-made products have to go through a workforce that is paid as humans should be paid, and products made in less economically fair countries can be manufactured for far less money. That means that American products, designs, and engineering need to outpace those of economically abusive countries, or America will find itself in a situation where everyone's in poverty and the only solution is to lower wages.

[scarletwoman]

32. Not sure I see your point. It hardly matters where something is invented, what matters is where

the owner of patent decides to manufacture it.

If an inventor decides that he'll make more profit by having it manufactured in a slave labor country, it doesn't matter where the inventor lived when he came up with the idea.

Personal computers were developed here, but where are they are actually being manufactured these days? TV was developed here, but where are they being made now?

The problem isn't who develops technology, the problem is who cares about developing our own people and their livelihoods.

[WinkyDink]

72. Your final "or" clause? We are there.

[kenfrequed]

107. But...

The nature of competition in a capitalist society has us also competing to produce goods as cheaply as possible, which has us competing against countries where labor is cheap and where there are few laws safe guarding the environment, worker safety, and protection against child labor laws.

Competition is a word we hear far too often. 'Cooperation' is the word we really needed to hear.

[JDPriestly]

134. ThatPoetGuy

We Americans can outpace economically abusive countries in terms of our designs and engineering. That will produce a lot of wealth for the people who develop the designs and engineering. But as long as the products are ultimately produced by low-wage workers in other countries, the wealth that is produced will not be shared with the vast majority of Americans.

When I say "shared," I'm not talking necessarily about hand-outs. I'm talking about income earned from manufacturing and other jobs.

The average American would be much better off without "free" trade. "Free" trade is costing us our jobs, our livelihoods, our way of life. It isn't "free" at all.

The term, "free" trade is just another Madison Avenue advertising gimmick to fool the American people.

The bit about how we need to outpace the creativity of other countries is nonsense. It won't work. This is not about poetry. It's about reality. And in the real world you can't feed and clothe and house people with wonderful-sounding words. We don't need poetry. We need jobs. And "free" trade destroys American jobs. We need to end it, not expand it.

[barbiegeek]

160. You are Right. You are not alone. I agree with you

[sudopod]

186. Ever heard of tarriffs? nt

[mdmc]

194. Where is the "disagree"?

:shrug:

[warren pease]

20. What the hell's so great about being a world leader?

How about trying to follow the civilized countries of the world for a change -- the western European social democracies come to mind, along with the former Brit colonies Canada and Australia.

New Zealand's doing well, at least until some snooping petro-geologist discovers OUR OIL in a sub-oceanic puddle 20 miles off the North Island's western coast. Then they're fucked, along with the "rag heads" and "sand Ni**ers" of the middle east.

Africa's next, and Nigeria looks like it's being measured for that giant Standard-Mobil-Shell-BP-Conoco-Exxon-Unocal bullseye the rest of the world has come to know and loathe. Leadership...

Who the hell needs this country's leadership? Who ever has besides those land speculating assholes and massive property thieves who invented the "white man's burden" and "Manifest Destiny?"

Why not discuss the white man's idea of leadership with the ghosts of the 15 million original Americans who were wiped out by "guns, germs and steel," in the words of the great, great geographer and anthropologist Jared Diamond.

Read Howard Zinn's "Peoples' History..." and learn what attempted leadership gets you. It ought to be a capital crime; here, it's woven into the fabric of our wretchedly phony creation myth. We have to be the world's leader because everybody else is just too... a) lazy; b) incompetent; c) anti-capitalist; or d) all of the above.

A little fucking humility would go a long way these days, it seems to me.

But, as always, your mileage may differ. In fact, it may require wiping out all New Zealand fisheries just to keep that ol' tank topped off.


wp

[Green_Lantern]

183. you just want to wallow in the past which is just a clever way..

For you to avoid considering how people can make a better world.

So we can't behave better as humans because our ancestors did bad things...

[scarletwoman]

206. Our best chance of making a better world is for the common people to throw off the parasite class

that sucks up all the wealth that the working class creates.

[Green_Lantern]

224. before you criticized the "elites" for deeming certain people

"Unworthy" yet you deem business owners unworthy of making profit from running businesses.

Where will all these jobs come from if no one starts a business.

Most businesses aren't multinational corporations.

[scarletwoman]

237. "Most businesses aren't multinational corporations." And since I never said a word against any

businesses except multinational corporations, I don't see how you've made the leap to, "you deem business owners unworthy of making profit from running businesses."

You're making a fallacious argument. All I've said is that I want to see American workers employed by businesses operating in America.

What, exactly, is objectionable about that?

[warren pease]

227. Ordinary people are contributing to a better world all over the globe...

Unfortunately, the US oligarchy isn't remotely interested in participating. Thus it ever was, as a look at real US history would demonstrate.

Or you can choose to ignore centuries of consistent patterns of behavior and hope for some great american renaissance to arise from our current wage-slave/consumer society. Given corporate control of virtually all facets of modern life in this reactionary, selfish country, I don't like the odds.

Pollyanna would become a most confirmed cynic if she spent a few months immersed in contemporary american culture, if that's not an oxymoron.


wp

[Green_Lantern]

229. what do you even mean

"The US oligarchy contributes nothing to benefit the world" which is a silly statement considering the US gives more to development assistance than most of Europe combined(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries)

You aren't a cynic, you just want an excuse to not have to work towards a solution.

You just tell us the problem and offer no solution.

[blindpig]

238. That ain't no solution

The ruling class is in the business of taking, their affectation of philanthropy is just that, and too often is a stalking horse for implementing more of their agenda(see education).

In any case, why should it be necessary that the survival and well-being of the working class be mediated by the whims of the ruling class? We were the ones who created the wealth in the first place, they are parasites.

[SammyWinstonJack]

21. K&R

[ProSense]

22. That's a great vision, and not in conflict

with the President's speech. Like it or not, the U.S. has to compete in the world. Progressive economists focus on currency and the world economy because they recognize that world economies have become intertwined. It's why some people panic when European countries default. The President cannot ignore these things. The U.S. is a big country (Krugman had an interesting post comparing Ireland to Nevada). It's a big capitalist country and it's economy is driven by business.

The President also can't ignore that the things Americans need to keep pace with the future, including declining natural resources, need to be made in this country. The U.S. can't adequately move to renewable energy if the innovations aren't happening in this country. When wind turbines weren't built in this country, that's was a problem.

During the health care reform debate, there were constant comparisons of U.S. per capita costs to those of other countries.

It's all about how to get the U.S. to move in the direction of fulfilling its obligation to people, including those who start and run businesses. Getting the greed out is important in that effort.

It's about addressing inequity and protecting freedom and opportunity.

"We can grow an enormous amount of food on this land -- more than enough to never be subject to famine within our borders. We are blessed with just about every natural resource needed for the manufacture of all the tools and products conducive to providing a comfortable life for all our citizens."

That's what makes this country unlike many. That was exactly what the President's speech was about, tapping into America's potential.



Edited typos.

[scarletwoman]

37. I don't agree. The SOTU was all about "winning" -- and peppered with references to beating

out the competition. If we were actually taking care of our own people, we wouldn't have to "win" against anyone else. We would simply take care of our own people.

The only ones who are competing on the world stage are the OWNERS. Their competition is about who controls the biggest piece of the wealth produced by the working class.

Why should the workers in the U.S. have to compete against Bangladeshis making $2.00 a week? It's absurd! If we were taking care of own people it would be totally irrelevant.

[ProSense]

39. "The only ones who are competing on the world stage are the OWNERS. "

The President is not a local grocer. He has to deal with the country's economy, the political establishment, and other world leaders.

"Why should the workers in the U.S. have to compete against Bangladeshis making $2.00 a week? "

Has a U.S. company ever taken a job from a U.S. worker to take advantage of $2.00 wages?

[scarletwoman]

44. Why don't you ask all the unemployed textile workers in S. Carolina?

[ProSense]

48. That's exactly the point.

Jobs are being lost to other countries.

There are legislative remedies, but that must be accompanied by investment and innovation.

[scarletwoman]

51. More than that, it must be accompanied by the WILL to take care of our own.

As long as the situation is framed as "competition", the ordinary U.S. worker is going to lose.

Whose "competition" is it? It isn't mine, it isn't yours, it's a competion among the Owners.

[Dr Fate]

53. The Owners must not be cut out of the equation.

The centrists think that if the owners, foreign and trans-national corporations, etc. cant cop a buck out of it or have control over it, then it cant or wont be done.

[ProSense]

60. Which is what

I said here:

It's all about how to get the U.S. to move in the direction of fulfilling its obligation to people, including those who start and run businesses. Getting the greed out is important in that effort.

[scarletwoman]

62. You're making the neoliberal, supply side, "free" market argument. I reject it.

from your previous post: "When wind turbines weren't built in this country, that's (sic) was a problem."

Wind turbines are being built in foreign countries because BUSINESS makes more profit when it uses the cheapest labor available. That's what happens when BUSINESS is given more consideration than workers.

It makes no difference if an American company comes up with a technological innovation. As long as profit trumps all other values, their innovation doesn't help American workers under the current system.

[ProSense]

63. No, I'm not.

"Wind turbines are being built in foreign countries because BUSINESS makes more profit when it uses the cheapest labor available. That's what happens when BUSINESS is given more consideration than workers."

No, that's what happens when regulations are lax, riddled with loopholes and/or not enforced.

Giving businesses consideration has nothing to do with outsourcing. States compete for businesses too by offering incentives to business owners. That doesn't result in American job losses.

[kenfrequed]

223. But

Thos incentives often result in state and regional budgeting shortfalls that are not made up by the slight increase in taxation base resulting from having those workers. Ultimately this competition is a zero sum game, and actually worse than that for the communities that need to compete for these jobs.

[RufusTFirefly]

153. "As long as the situation is framed as 'competition', the ordinary U.S. worker is going to lose."

You nailed it, scarletwoman.
But questioning this assumption is considered heresy in the eyes of free-market fundamentalists.

[scarletwoman]

203. I'll always be a happy heretic.

And, hopefully, an inconvenient heretic. :)

[Marr]

95. There's the place where your assumptions don't match up with reality.

There are legislative remedies, yes-- but they are not going to be enacted. The last 20-30 years of legislation has been about disassembling the types of laws and policies you allude to.

If these types of laws were enacted, investment and innovation would need to accompany them. But they are not. Obama is not and will never push for it. He'll push for "investment", sure-- because that's just pulling money from the working class and handing it to wealthy campaign donors. But he's never going to touch "legislative remedies".

[Dr Fate]

145. He's talking about what centrists "say" in their speeches, not what they end up actually doing.

I agree that we should look to their past actions as opposed to what they say.

[BobbyBoring]

174. Has a U.S. company ever

Has a U.S. company ever taken a job from a U.S. worker to take advantage of $2.00 wages?

Absolutely X millions! It's called out sourcing. Our medical records are all recorded in India now as are call centers for most banks, cable countries. That's why Jeff Immelt was such a poor choice to be Obamas Job Creation Dude. GE is one of the biggest offenders~

[Enthusiast]

97. PLUS ONE!

Perfectly said.

[Atypical Liberal]

124. But how do you "take care of our own people?"

If we were actually taking care of our own people, we wouldn't have to "win" against anyone else. We would simply take care of our own people.

And how does one do this, exactly? The usual thought, one I share, is that we take care of our own people by making sure everyone has a shot at a job. Since we are competing in a global market for jobs, we definitely need to WIN against other people if we want to make sure those jobs are here at home.

Why should the workers in the U.S. have to compete against Bangladeshis making $2.00 a week? It's absurd! If we were taking care of own people it would be totally irrelevant.

Again, exactly what does it mean to "take care of our own people"? Give everyone jobs? Give them money? Free food? What does it mean to you?

[pampango]

139. I would think that means providing people with the safety net found in Canada and Europe.

I think Canada, Europe and Australia, among others, have functioning social democracies that do "take care of their own people" and are very successful with their international trade.

[Atypical Liberal]

142. Safety nets are great...

They are still very successful with their international trade because they are successfully competing in the international marketplace.

Safety nets are great, and all civilized societies should have them. But no one wants to live on a public safety net.

The OP is opining that we should not have to compete in the international marketplace, that we should just "take care of our own people". To which I again ask, how do you do that, exactly?

[pampango]

151. That's the irony. With safety nets, Canadians and Europeans excel in international trade.

Without a safety net no country citizens are going to have a good quality of life. It seems to me that the countries that appreciate the importance of safety nets also appreciate the benefits of trade.

I assume the OP intends that America could take care of its own if foreigners would quit messing with us. We have a history of turning inward for long periods of time - "You leave us alone. We'll leave you alone." Maybe the 70 years since 1941 are just a longer duration of constant global involvement than our history has prepared us for.

[liberation]

173. The irony is further compounded when one actually pays attention to our GDP

and realizes that internal consumption makes most of it, not "international trade." In fact we're a net importer, i.e. we bring in more crap that we export.

So technically, those requesting the American government focuses on providing for our citizens first and worry about "competing" second... are actually correct.

[pacalo]

167. Good grief, she's talking about ideas -- good ones that would eliminate a lot of what's gone wrong

in our country. Leave it at that instead of focusing on the nuts & bolts. Leave it simply as a DUer who sang the tune that resonated with a lot of us. A good concept is a beginning; the economic experts handle the machinery.

[liberation]

170. The irony in all this is that SOTU speeches have been morphed more into a pep rally by the president

than what the were supposed to be: an actually honest assessment by the executive branch of our government of our country's situation.

In that regard, Obama's speech (in the same line as his predecessors) was woefully lacking in regards of specifics and details. The irony, as I was mentioning earlier, is that anyone counterpointing such speeches are expected to provide specific details.

[bvar22]

143. "taking care of our own people" used to be Democratic Party Policy.

Here is an excerpt from another "Democratic" SOTU:

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Americas own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."--FDR

Sadly, THAT "Democratic Party" no longer exists.

"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone


"By their works, you will know them."

[Atypical Liberal]

155. Sounds good, but beyond the power of any president.

Good stuff, and many of those points are still achievable. But the world is very different today than it was in FDR's day. FDR did not live in a time when anyone could speak to and see anyone in the world instantly, at any time. He did not live in a time where overnight global delivery is commonplace.

Sure, we want everyone to have the right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation. But they are going to be competing against the workers in other nations struggling for those same rights.

Sure, we want everyone to have the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation. But they are going to be competing against workers in other nations willing to do the same job for less.

Sure, we want everyone to have the right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living. But they are going to be selling their products on a global market.

Sure, we want every businessman to have the right to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad, and in so doing they are tapping the labor pools of the world to do it.

The rest of the points on FDR's list I think are certainly within the control of policy of our government. But the rest are beyond its control.

[bvar22]

156. Beyond the power of the president to implement?...OK

But it is NOT beyond the power of the President to STAND UP and lead the country in that direction.

[Atypical Liberal]

163. I don't think we can go in that direction.

The President is up against the global reality that we are one people living in one global market, and the fact that the American legislature controls only a (shrinking) portion of it.

[bvar22]

190. Yes. We. Can.

We do NOT have to buy into the NeoLiberal myth of "Globalization".
We CAN stand Up for Human Rights and a Piece of the Pie for the global Working Class.

"Free Trade" and "Free Markets" area LIE created by the RICH (Corporate Owners) who used smooth talking politicians to sell it to a gullible America.

[glowing]

201. Its actually a very easy concept... We as a country still have quite a bit of power and say.

If our trade was set up as "Fair Trade", rather than "Free Trade".. We would all still have a global economy, however, we would not exploit people around the world... Steal their resources, abuse their people all for cheap plastic trinkets and energy resources. If we had laws that stated no product may enter this country if it was produced without the same labor standards that we insist upon for ourselves, it would condition countries that wish to sell to Americans to actually better their peoples lives and bring true democracy to more people around the world. But the rich and powerful buy and sell politicians and play chess with peoples lives. They use fear of violence, famine, and those other basic necessities that humans need for basic survival.

We have 7 billion people inhabiting this earth. We cannot just be a centrist me, me, me nation when the issues that face our future have a worldwide impact. Its time we think about what values worldwide every human being should be entitled to. What is a good and decent life? What can we do to live with each other globally? These are not easy questions to answer, however, they must be assessed.

[scarletwoman]

208. Funny thing, a really good start would be single payer health care.

One of the most useful things we could do in order to help our own workforce and their employers "compete" in a global economy would be to take the onus for paying health insurance off the backs of the employers.

[rhett o rick]

158. "It's all about how to get the US to move in the direction....." That's rhetoric.

That's what the speech was full of. Of course we need to "tap into America's potential". Duh. But are we going to? Not as long as wall street runs the country. They have run the country into the ditch and the Pres has said nothing about fixing it. In fact he has surrounded himself with business leaders. They like high unemployment. Profits are up and wages are down, capitalism at it's finest.

He said he wants to build stuff in America. Yeah. We all do. But it isnt possible with the current regulations put in place by CorpAmerica.

[JackDragna]

23. A million times, this.

I gain nothing if I live comfortably and others in the world live in poverty.

[WoodyM]

213. And you gain nothing

by trying to help other nation's impoverished people when all the benefit goes to already rich and powerful.

[varelse]

24. K&R

[Autumn]

26. Such an eloquent post by

a beautiful soul. Thank you

[Populist_Prole]

27. What a great missive. K&R

[craigmatic]

29. We're a service, white collar economy. Wealth and geo political power has always been controlled by

countries with a big manufacturing base. Also how can American workers compete with people who'll work for pennies on the dollar. The president should've told us the truth in his SOTU- GLOBIALIZATION HAS FAILED US ALL.

[Ramulux]

30. Couldn't have put it better

Sadly, the idea of American exceptionalism transcends political parties. For some fucking reason we cant just be the best we can be, we have to beat everyone else. Its all about the underlying selfish competitive nature of capitalism and the idea that only the strong and smart survive and the weak must suffer. It makes me sick.

[scarletwoman]

57. There's a significant irony in all this. If we were actually setting an EXAMPLE of taking care

of our own, other nations wouldn't feel so free to overtly subjugate their own people. All our high-minded talk about "freedom" and "democracy" and "rule of law" would actually mean something.

[pampango]

71. Well said. Taking care of our own would set an example for other nations.

Instead we talk a good game but don't "walk the walk".

[Earth_First]

31. BRAVO!

Take a stand, scarletwoman...

:applause:

Bravo!

[inna]

34. kr and thank you

[hfojvt]

35. it's very Clintonesque though and typically American

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/74

However, without mechanisms for international cooperation, to choose not to compete, just means you will lose.

[scarletwoman]

40. But why would we lose? We are quite capable of taking care of most of our needs.

"Winning", "losing" -- what does it really mean?

Can we not feed ourselves? Can we not clothe ourselves? Can we not shelter ourselves? Can we not educate ourselves? Can we not make what we need?

What does it mean to an ordinary person that his country "dominates"? It seems to me that national "domination" most often means that the ordinary citizen gets hung out to dry while the Leaders play global power games that mean nothing to anyone but the powerful.

[thesquanderer]

81. It's our fault, and the alternative is protectionism/isolationism

re: "Can we not feed ourselves? Can we not clothe ourselves? Can we not shelter ourselves? Can we not educate ourselves? Can we not make what we need?"

The problem is that, although we can make what we need, others can make it cheaper.

As long as people in this country are *willing* to buy cheaper products from China, businesses will work to bring those products to the consumer. If that's really what the consumer wants, is the business wrong to provide those cheaper goods to the consumer? It's their role to make business decisions. It's up to us, and the government, to counter that when there is a greater interest. Either we, as consumers, have to commit to buying american whenever there is an american manufacturer to buy from, OR the government has to erect barriers to prevent the cheaper imports from undercutting our own manufacturers/farmers/suppliers. But that isn't an easy choice either, since other countries will react in kind, and protectionism/isolationism has consequences too.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

91. But that's the "race to the bottom" spiral epitomized

Because companies outsourced production to cheaper countries, workers who used to make good wages with benefits in manufacturing now work at WalMart or 7/11 if they can find work anywhere, and so now it's not a matter of CHOOSING to buy sweatshop products to clothe their children or outfit their kitchens. It's that they can't afford anything American-made--but they could have before their boss outsourced production.

It's gotten so bad that you'd be hard pressed to find ANYTHING in a national chain store that's made in the U.S.

I'm for free trade ONLY among nations of similar economic status. ASEAN and MERCOSUR make sense, and the EU did until they started adding the much poorer Eastern European countries.

[scarletwoman]

235. I've neglected to thank you for your excellent posts on this thread up to now.

I want you to know that I so very much appreciate everything you've written here. You will always be one of my DU idols. :)

Seriously, I have always learned so much from everything you write -- you have my greatest respect. I'd like to thank from the bottom of my heart for your wonderful posts on this thread, as well as the all your countless posts throughout the years which have always been edifying to the highest degree.

:hug:
sw

[hfojvt]

108. clearly we cannot

for one thing, we cannot produce enough oil to sustain our standard of living.

Although a standard of living is a funny thing. We do a lot of driving to sustain ours, but does all the driving really make us better off? The people doing it seem to think it does, but people are very often illogical. My boss, for example, is retired. Yet he works a full time job. He does so in order to obtain a "higher standard of living". To me, though, a higher standard of living would include "more free time". He always seems unhappy about his job, complaining about his boss or his subordinates. But, to some degree, that is also what he enjoys - bossing others around and belittling them.

[BobbyBoring]

178. That's true

We can't produce enough oil. However, we consume way more than we need to. We were all so spoiled in the run up to this disaster. We could live way beyond our means because someone would finance us while making a killing in the process. The chickens have come home to roost though.

I can't stand going to Baltimore or DC anymore because the traffic is so congested and it's due to 1 person in one car. Heaven forbid we might have to make the sacrifice of having to organize a few people riding to work together. We also should have been way past the point of using combustion engines exclusively. Had we continued the electric car technology when it started in the 80s, think where we would be now.

We can however produce enough of everything else. There's a great doc. on HBO called Schmata. It's about the garment industry. In 1964, we produced 95% of all our cloths. Now it's 5. Same with everything else. We used to make all our ranges, washers and dryers, etc and now we import them.

Our standard of living will never be the same.

[Ex Lurker]

195. large sections of the country would be nearly uninhabited without autombiles

there's no feasible way to make public transit work in most of rural America. Maybe large parts of the country being nearly uninhabited wouldn't be such a bad thing, but it would be a radically different way of life and would take several generations to make an orderly transition.

[hfojvt]

221. yet almost all of the country was settled before the automobile was invented

there is also plenty of mass transit. I work in an old train station and trains go roaring by in both directions about every half an hour. Yet I cannot take a train to Omaha or Joplin. In theory a couple of passenger cars could be added to all those freight trains.

Another system of mass transportation that most rural areas have - is school buses. They spent tens or hundreds of thousands on buses and drivers to take kids to and from school. Why couldn't the same buses also be used to take mom and dad to work, and then back home? When I was in Germany I took an early train to Siegen and it filled up with schoolchildren. We'd be halfway to a mass transit system if we incorporated the school bus system into it. We already have vehicles and drivers.

[Ex Lurker]

230. good points nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

209. Yes, I had a higher standard of living in Portland than here

I didn't have to spend thousands of dollars a year on a car, so I attended every major performing arts event (centrally located and easily accessible by public transit) and indulged in books, music, and eating out.

[somone]

36. Recommended

[Catherina]

38. Thank you, thank you. I so wholeheartedly recommend this. n/t

[stevedeshazer]

41. +1

You are right.

[Newest Reality]

42. Great post and well said! May truth prevail!

Things are changing rapidly and there is a great dawning of realization that resources are not infinite, they are precious. We use the word economy and a form of that word is to economize. This is what needs to be done with the rest of the precious resources left.

There is much wealth on this planet and yet it is not distributed nor used properly, sanely and with concern about amount or impact. People starve, (and more will) by way of monetary famines, not actual lack of food. This has to change and our basic land-based needs are not only at stake, but must come first in any future paradigm. There is enough for everyone to live far better if excess and consumerism were not the dominant driving forces that we have been convinced to believe are the way life is and should be.

I, too, see no more value in competition and winning when its implications are obvious and no longer the solution to our future as a species and the other creatures that share this planet with us. Neither a game or a battle needs to be won by implication and in accord with the boardroom, business mentality of the exploitation masters. It has become clear that mutual cooperation has been the best means of survival and support for a frail species like ours.

Support, transition and localizing by establishing communities for the new century that recognizes the reality of finite resources where, rather than an infinite garbage dump, our home world is seen as a fragile ecosystem of which we are a part and cannot survive without it being nurtured and kept in a healthy balance. The more we make and use locally, and the more durable and realistic that production is, the less energy we will consume by importing almost everything and the more equity and tangible wealth we can all share.

You are not going to hear the clear reality of our current crises addressed by those who want us to keep quite no matter what while a systemic collapse is covered-up for the sake of a few who, by way of lucrative monetary systems, acquire profits and maintain control. That is unacceptable and will eventually prove to be unsustainable to a bifurcation point. Either the system will change and transform for the better of all, or those in control will have to elicit more and more draconian measures to keep us, the majority, suppressed adn repressed. One future is brighter, the other dark, troubling and deadly.

[scarletwoman]

46. That's exactly what bothered me. The SOTU was a blueprint of the dark vision.

I uncategorically reject that vision. It does not support elementary human life, it supports only abstract notions of power.

[Newest Reality]

49. Me too!

There is a bifurcation point here. You and I are among many people who see what we are facing and can embrace the vision and flexibility that is necessary for our survival and the planet.

There is the dark vision that exists to preserve and propagate itself, (as we are seeing) and there is one that is about life itself. That distinction, to me is most crucial and extrmely critical at this stage. Perhaps it will begin to dawn on more of us as the systemic collapse worsens in degree and scope.

[msongs]

43. turn yourself into a corporation and all the benefits of our government will flow to you nt

[SharksBreath]

132. You hit the nail on the head.

That's exactly what I'm doing. I just started a corporation to benefit me.

Everything I do from now on will be done by my corporation.

These are the new rules. You better learn how to play by them.

Every single American should register as a corporation.

They have more rights than we the people.

I didn't make the rules I just play by them.

I remember when bankruptcy was frowned upon as a regular American . Yet the rich filed for bankruptcy all the time.

It was a get out of debt card.

How many times has Trump filed for bankruptcy.

Yet when the people who really needed bankruptcy started filing for it they changed the rules to make it harder.

Create your corporation and ride the wave. If we all do it they will change the rules.

[pampango]

45. Is there some middle ground between jingoistic nationalism and isolationism?

Why should it be legal to buy something from (or sell to) a guy in San Francisco (2,000 miles away), but it would not be permitted to buy from or sell to a guy in Toronto (500 miles from here)? Wouldn't such a policy represent a similar form of jingoistic nationalism - USA-good, Canada-bad?

[scarletwoman]

50. I'm talking about self-sufficiency, not isolationism.

Why should we not be able to take of own people in such a way that none of us have to suffer undue privation?

What I'm pointing out is what was missing from the SOTU -- a call to take care of the needs of our own countrymen. We don't have to "win" any damn thing, we just have to take care of our own -- and we have the means to do so, if only we focused on THAT instead of "competition".

[pampango]

70. OP describes isolationism. What part of the definition do you disagree with?

Isolationism is a foreign policy adopted by a nation in which the country refuses to enter into any alliances, foreign trade or economic commitments, or international agreements, in hopes of focusing all of its resources into advancement within its own borders while remaining at peace with foreign countries by avoiding all entanglements of foreign agreements. In other words, it asserts both of the following:

Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
Protectionism – There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

[Dr Fate]

52. Many independents and even conservatives agree with you and I on this,

And if given the choice, I really think most voters, besides the very rich minority, would agree as well.

That is why I call bulshit when people try to tell me that Blue Dog/DLC style corporate favoritism is "mainstream" and "moderate."

I think DEMS could win every election for the next 20 years with talk and action like you suggest. BUT NOOOOO- it's "too Liberal" it's not "moderate" or "centrist" enough, even though Liberlas and many independents across the board would love it. Some conservatives & many nationalist types too.

Same with the war- even a lot of conservatives want an immediate pull out- but centrist politicians insist that this would somehow cause DEMS to lose elections. I think the are either fibbing, or just unwilling to work hard.

[Enthusiast]

99. I agree with your assessment, Dr Fate.

Corporate favoritism is not "mainstream" and "moderate". Reining in corporate abuses would be wildly popular with the electorate. We can start with the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

[bbgrunt]

125. not to mention that corporatism does not promote

"competition" in any sense of the word. The competition that results is market domination and control of all aspects of life.

People talk about competition as if it were a fair game. It is not.

[Blue_Tires]

105. +1

[DirkGently]

54. "the pathologically greedy among us." Great observations. Great post.

[JVS]

55. Competition is the most entangling of foreign entanglements.

[Enthusiast]

100. Good one! nt

[NRaleighLiberal]

56. K&R. Well stated - I completely agree. Thanks for the great post. n/t

[JoeyT]

58. Hear hear.

Especially since every time we hear anyone say "Competition" in the global sense of late what they really mean is "Workers! Throw off the tyrannical chains of your union and accept a dollar an hour with no benefits! Those kids don't need to eat!"

I don't really give a damn if other countries pull ahead of us, as long as we're taking care of our poor and middle class and have living wages for our workers someone else can have number 1 and I wish them the best.

Unfortunately the jingoists are almost always referring exclusively to how much money can be brought in for the robber barons. Any other metric for measuring our success is socialism or keeps us from competing.

[Odin2005]

59. K&R

[leftstreet]

61. K&R

[robdogbucky]

64. Great post, scarletwoman

If anyone needs ideas on how to go about improving things in the face of the failed US paradigm of economics per the World Bank, et al, check out Oliver Stone's newest film, South of the Border. Aside from interviewing all those Bolivarian leaders that have been elected in honest elections in the last 8 or so years, the story they all tell, Chavez of Venezuela, Morales of Bolivia, Correa of Ecquador, Kirchner of Argentina, Bishop Fernando Lugo, now president of Paraguay, and Lula De Silva of Brazil, is one of throwing out the IMF, the DEA, all foreign imperialist traditional oligarchical forms of the old US, European, Japanese influence peddlers.

They are in the main, indigenous people that rose up the ranks from slums, poor farms and harsh poverty, and labor movements to become elected leaders. There is a new wave of freedom and prosperity going on down there and they won't turn back.

One key for all of them, they have become much more self-sustaining and profitable on their own, without the IMF, the DEA, the US and the like. They paid them off and kicked them out. Some that needed help received it in order to pay off the onerous loans from the IMF. You see with loans from them the conditions of said loan allows the IMF to dictate economic policy. See Confessions of an Economic Hitman. I think when it is all said and done we will have to take a lesson from them in how it's done.

Check it out, so many great quotes. Cutting edge stuff. Very uplifting.

[idlisambar]

65. compete or get left behind

The cold reality is that the fate of societies is determined by more or less Darwinian rules. Withdrawing from the field of battle is not an option.

We take our strength for granted, forgetting that without it the political landscape would look very different today. Don't forget that WWII without US strength would have placed Europe and much of the rest of the world under fascist control. The influence the US has had on the world -- its culture and values -- has always been predicated on strength. That Democracy and liberalism predominate as they do owes less to the innate goodness of these values, and more to the strengh of it's leading proponent societies, the US in particular. Going into a shell leaves room for competing values to flourish. China's system -- authoritarian statism -- will benefit from our absence.

[pampango]

74. Or don't compete and make the world go away -China's Great Wall strategy.

The world doesn't stay "away" forever, but we all live in the here and now. Eliminating competition can make our lives easier for some period before what's been happening in the world comes storming back, so it has a certain attraction particularly in a country that is big enough and has enough resources to "go it alone". Few other countries in the world could attempt this - maybe Canada and Russia - without extreme deprivation for their citizens.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

94. Let us compete with other advanced countries, not with poor ones

And let "globalization" mean not that the companies get to rape other countries at will but that each country borrows good ideas from other countries (something that many of the "ra-ra U.S.A." types would never do).

[pampango]

106. And if poor countries want to export to countries with the money to buy stuff?

Suppose a trading club of advanced countries does make some sense. We already have liberal trade agreements with Canada and Australia. Add in Europe and you'd have most of the advanced economies in the world.

Maybe let the poor countries form their own and trade with each other. MERCOSUR is an attempt to do this in South America, the African Economic Community does too, and ASEAN in Asia is a really large trading bloc.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

135. If the poor countries trade with one another and build on their respective strengths

they will build up their own industries (what Jane Jacobs called "import replacement") and not be dependent on the prices for cash crops and raw materials.

[Enthusiast]

101. If we must compete it should

be on a completely level playing field with considerations for U.S. workers and consumers and foreign workers, their rights and their environment. Anything else is a lose lose condition and that is the path we are on.

[JI7]

66. why not ? it does good things, how do you think we ended up on the Moon ?

competition can be good in some cases like olympics, scientific research etc.

[Smashcut]

67. Wow. So right and so eloquently put.

I have nothing to add but K/R.

[tomp]

68. excellent point. the many references to competition bothered me, too.

I read a book many years ago called No Contest by Alfie Kohn. It provided a very convincing scientifically based argument that competition is inherently counterproductive, i.e., bad, in virtually all circumstances.

I do, however, agree with JackDragna about solidarity with the rest of the non-"owners" of the world. imperialsim has long been an international phenomenon. the owners may compete with one another, but when the chips are down the cooperate with one another against the non-owners.

there is nowhere to run anymore. we are all connected, worldwide. the competition between owners and non-owners is essentially forced upon us by the owners. you will not find the taking care of others on a national or international level until the owners have been divested of their power. how that will happen is essentially the only thing that progressive people have to discuss.

[myrna minx]

69. I accidently unrecced this amazing essay!

Thank you SW and sorry about this unrec.

[Enthusiast]

102. I fixed it. nt

[myrna minx]

118. Thanks.

:hi:

[scarletwoman]

205. Not to worry. It would seem that your accidental unrec has been compensated for --

big time! :D

:loveya:
sw

[myrna minx]

218. No kidding, my dear. It seems that your sage wisdom has

resonated with the majority of we commie pinkos. Much gratitude, comrade. I shall hoist up a cup of fermented bulgar in your honor. :D :loveya: :rofl:
Now where is our communal snugglekins, Kurovski?

[scarletwoman]

236. "Sage wisdom"? Yikes! I'm just a cranky old lady living alone in the woods with my dogs,

and my Flintstones era computer.

In another age, I hope I would have been cranking out the occasional mimeographed pages of samizdat.

So, greetings, Comrade! I shall also hoist a glass of fermented something -- purely medicinal, of course, lest I lose my mind completely. :D

As for our dear Comrade Kurovsksi, I can only hope that he will reappear eventually.

:hug:
sw

[Starry Messenger]

73. k&r

[LWolf]

75. Competition is a destructive paradigm. You nailed it.

I am so sick of this nation's obsession with competition in every arena.

[Swamp Rat]

76. k&r

:kick:

[Joanne98]

77. Globalization is a SCAM!

[pampango]

85. Globalization-describes the process by which regional economies, societies, and cultures have become

integrated through a global network of political ideas through communication, transportation, and trade. The term is most closely associated with the term economic globalization: the integration of national economies into the international economy through trade, foreign direct investment, capital flows, migration, the spread of technology, and military presence. However, globalization is usually recognized as being driven by a combination of economic, technological, sociocultural, political, and biological factors. The term can also refer to the transnational circulation of ideas, languages, or popular culture through acculturation. An aspect of the world which has gone through the process can be said to be globalised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalisation

Politicization of the debate in the United States

The study by Peer Fiss and Paul Hirsch suggests that the politicization of this discourse has emerged largely in response to greater US involvement with the international economy. ... Initially, college educated workers were the most likely to support globalization. Less educated workers, who were more likely to compete with immigrants and workers in developing countries, tended to oppose globalization. The situation changed radically when white collar workers started to blame immigration and globalization for their own increased economic insecurity. According to a poll conducted for the Wall Street Journal and NBC News, in 1997, 58% of college graduates said globalization had been good for the U.S. while 30% said it had been bad. When the poll asked a similar question in 2008 (after the financial crisis of 2007), 47% of graduates thought globalization was bad and only 33% thought it was good. Respondents with high school education, who were always opposed to globalization, became more opposed.

The debate in other industrialized countries

Philip Gordon, in a recent article in Yale Global, states that “(as of 2004) a clear majority of Europeans believe that globalization can enrich their lives, while believing the European Union can help them take advantage of globalization’s benefits while shielding them from its negative effects.” ... Part of the reason for the difference in response to globalization in US and EU lies in the fact that workers in the US have been more strongly impacted by factors like automation and outsourcing than their European counterparts. Income Inequality in the US, for example, is now much higher than in the EU. Gordon points out that workers in the EU feel less threatened by globalization. First, the job market in the EU is more stable than that of the US, and workers in the EU are less likely to accept wage cuts or loss of benefits. Second, social spending by governments in the EU is much higher than in the US. The situation is very different in the US, where there is a strong sense of individualism.

The debate in the developing world

A number of international polls have shown that residents of developing countries tend to view globalization more favorably than residents of the US or the EU. However, a recent poll undertaken by the BBC indicates that there is a growing feeling in the Third World that globalization is proceeding too rapidly. There are only a few countries, including Mexico, the countries of Central America, Indonesia, Brazil and Kenya, where a majority felt that globalization is growing too slowly.

Alternative ways of interpreting discourse on globalization

1) Hyperglobalists hold that autonomy and sovereignty of nation-states have been eclipsed by contemporary processes of economic globalization.
2) Sceptics hold that intensity of contemporary global interdependence is considerably exaggerated and that the hyperglobalists ignore the continued primacy of national power and sovereignty.
3) Transformationalists emphasize the way in which globalization has brought about the spatial re-organization and re-articulation of economic, political, military and cultural power.

[jbeing]

127. I agree

Am almost finished reading "The Shock Doctrine" by
Naomi Klein. 

A must read for everyone. It opened my eyes, because I had
this hazy idea that capitalism and competition co-existed.
WRONG! What the economists call capitalism is actually fraud,
insider-trading, manipulation of people and governments - all
to make a quick buck and squeezing the population into poverty
and allowing a few outside corporations and their in-country
toadies to reap the benefits. And the methodology consists of
mass murder, torture, starvation, destruction and rape - of
both people and their resources. Fight back and you're called
a "Socialist" or Communist." Very clever - the
banks, corporations, economists (Friedman and his dickish
disciples from Chicago) and our own short-sighted government -
they conspire to rob the world (AKA globalization), one
country at a time.

Competition has nothing to do with it. Hell, there is no
competition.

Read "The Shock Doctrine." What does it take to make
your blood boil?

[valerief]

78. I totally agree!!!!

:kick:

[barbiegeek]

79. With global warming the USA can't feed 1/3 of billion citizens alone

[Bragi]

80. Traitor!

You are supposed to start every day looking into your mirror and saying: "I can beat those Chinese and cripple those Euros. Let me at 'em!"

Then you're supposed to go out and buy crap you don't need, while demanding lower wages to be competitive.

Well, I see we can't count on any support in this from you and your "ilk."

:sarcasm:

[Action]

82. We are the fools

To the repubs: Social Security is chump change
To the rest of us: Social Security is survival
How many Baby Boomers voted for the repubs starting with Reagan?
What fools your were and are! See now what friends the repubs are to the working folks? While you voted for Guns, God and Gays, your party was stealing us blind.
Of course many of you let race cloud your vote in 2008, right? Who will protect you now? Not the repubs/tea baggers! You better hope Obama and the Dems can protect you.
How many Baby Boomers will still vote repub in 2012? Total fools!

[mistertrickster]

83. Totally agree. The SOTU sounds like it was written by an ad agency

after researching what gives people warm fuzzies.

People don't care about who's number one, Mr. President, they just want a decent job.

[Brewman_Jax]

84. Well said

What's the use when there's always money for guns, bullets, and bombs, but never any for books, bread, and beds. :shrug:

[dotymed]

86. Thank you, scarletwoman.

This competing with the world to be the #1 capitalists is so destructive to everyone except for the elite. It is a "race to the bottom" and they are well aware of it.
Our world should not be about competition, that is just more of the same viscousness that has caused so much suffering. Fuck competition, this is not a game, it is our lives.
"They" want us to "compete" against other impoverished people so that they can get more wealth. FUCK "THEM." Let's make this about "US," the citizens of the world. We are tired of being disposable pawns in this multi-national competition. Instead, lets introduce a new paradigm. One of mutual cooperation and benefit. Let these bastards compete all they want. We know better. If we said "no", they sure as hell would not get their hands dirty, so they could compete.
It is time for world cooperation not more destructive competition.
This helps to prove what so many people already know, Democracy and capitalism are not compatible.

[humblebum]

87. We need enough protectionism to be able to compete freely and fairly

with the Chinese and others, who also function under heavy protectionist policies. Strong unions equate to a power in numbers strategy and we have lost that.

[xchrom]

89. ...

:applause:

[nalnn]

90. I am sorry

Your post sounds naive and out of touch. While reality certainly can change, the possibility of the world you envision is so far away in the realm of possibility that it beggars belief.

Unfortunately, humanity is bound to repeat this cycle that we are currently in 'til the proverbial Kingdom come.

While this is my OPINION, an unfortunate fact is that it is a widely shared opinion. Also, those inalienable rights can't exist without sacrifice.

[BobbyBoring]

181. I don't know how old you are

but I can guess. 28?? Believe it or not, this used to be a great country, a country where you could make it if you tried and the cards weren't stacked against you~

[Enthusiast]

92. Communist!

Just kidding, of course.

I agree with your vision. Unfortunately the needs of "We, the ordinary citizens", now have to take seat at the back of the bus in favor of the needs of powerful corporations. These greedy and powerful now have every mechanism in place to prevent change in our favor as was clearly illustrated by the SOTU address.

[shimmergal]

96. You're right in large part,

although I almost equally agree with ThatPoetGuy.

Although I'm "old," too, but my physical (and non-material) needs are considerably larger than yours. Not trying to brag or pry, but with adult children and with grandchildren that I live close to, I have to worry about their needs and futures, as well as my own.


But the larger point is, Obama needed to try to 1) project a sense of optimism and purpose about the future, and 2) one that would aim at some badly-needed unity. Americans only vote for, and support, a President who projects optimism and national purpose. Jimmy Carter, a good man, never caught on to this, with his talk about "malaise" and telling Americans to put on a sweater if they're cold. It's no accident that all our two-term Presidents, from FDR on, have managed to do so, even though Reagan's optimism was mostly based on false premises, and GW Bush's was just the hail-fellow-well-met of fraternity hi-jinks.

I haven't decided if this was the best tack to take to achieve it, but if it works to invigorate us in this "down" time, I have no quarrel with it. Of course we need to do something about the flight of our factories and industries overseas. Other countries, our "trading partners" have protectionist policies, why put ourselves at such a disadvantage? China, for example, requires any foreign company establishing itself there to be 51% Chinese-owned. The day may well come when all the U.S. companies invested there find they're taken over completely, with no profit flow from these enterprises. Of course the CEOs don't worry about this; most are only focused on making their bundle before it happens.

So I can quibble with Obama's not addressing outsourcing in this SOTU, but it's rather late in the game for that anyhow. Our task is to figure out ways to work around what's already happened. And "lower our expectations" isn't going to work for that. I could wish that he'd promote space exploration as a national purpose, but in the Great Recession that doesn't have a chance of happening. Let's gear up to protect Social Security and demolish the many foolish mega-expenditures in our "defense" budget, not bewail the President's honest effort--here, at least--to retool his message about the future.

[Paper Roses]

98. I have had it up to 'here' with the philosophy that we have to be or

that most of us even want to be Number one.

The time has past for us to try and be bigger and better than anyone else.
We should only be top in the way we treat and care for our citizens.
It is obvious we are not doing that not.

We currently are Number 1 at beating up and bossing around the rest of the world.
How about we take those actions and dollars to make our homeland Number one for all of us.

[ClassWarrior]

103. Wow, you sure use the word "me" a lot.

NGU.

[defendandprotect]

104. "Competition" is insane -- we need cooperation, for the planet and for labor ....

and we need to move this insane and exploitive system of capitalism OUT -- !!

[judy]

109. I'm with you scarletwoman!

100%.
And when you compare the SOTU with his visionary campaign speeches, you see the change of tone, and it makes me want to cry.
And let's not forget the useless and proliferation of drone attacks, and the spending cuts that never touch the hyper expensive illegal wars that we continue to pay for.
Obama is an intelligent man, but he seems to be operating on negotiating grounds, without any underlying principles.
As if winning was the only thing...I am so tired of the Right!

[obxhead]

110. Don't worry, Obama does not want to compete either.

Yes, there was a lot of hot air about technology and green this and that, but the only thing in that speech that has any chance of becoming a widespread reality is trade agreements that facilitate outsourcing.

[CrispyQ]

116. Well said!

Sad, but true.

[4_TN_TITANS]

111. Excellent post..... n/t

[ceile]

112. k&r

[theHandpuppet]

113. Fabulous post, eloquently expressed

Happy to K&R.

:thumbsup:

[Enrique]

114. what about Sputnik?

;-)

[fascisthunter]

115. It's Ironic, because those repeating that rhetoric don't seem to give a damn about its people

the deluded business folks still live in that me, me, me universe where everything should depend on their business interests, then the people may or may not be represented and rewarded for their work everyday. It's bullshit.... "We must compete with China".... how the fuck will we do that? Oh, that's right, I have to work for a few dollars less an hour... I see.

No, the real deal is this... the rich want to take advantage of low wages workers who have no other choice, and that's the model system this admin and the GOP want us all to swallow. Fuck that!

[robinlynne]

117. I had a similar feeling. the nationalism. the "This is the greatest country on earth"

stuff and our economy is the strongest in the world rang hollow and false. Nationalsim is a positive thing when your country is invaded by another country. When we are the invaders.......

[Lydia Leftcoast]

119. And too many Americans buy it, because they've never been anywhere else

Whenever someone tells me that "This is the greatest country in the world," I ask them how many other countries they've been to. The answer is always either "none" or they were in the military in Vietnam or they went to Tijuana once.

[robinlynne]

133. "They went to Tijuana once." lol

[I hate liars]

120. Jingoism is a front for the extractive class...

...who would like nothing more than to pad profits by forcing the rest of us to "compete" with 3rd world workers making $3 / day, while maintaining first-world prices that force the working class in this country further toward poverty.

So I agree with the principle you state that competition has no value to us, but I'm also maddened by the blatant manipulation in Obama's SOTU language (not his exclusively, of course).

[Lydia Leftcoast]

121. One of the most valuable things I learned from living in Japan in the 1970s

was that I could be very happy without all the Stuff that Americans find essential. I lived in a 9 x 12 room with no central heating (Tokyo has much warmer winters than Minnesota does, but I still had to get by with space heaters and that marvelous heated table known as a kotatsu) and no bathtub or shower. Yet I loved going to the public bath and shopping in the little stores and not needing a car.

We don't need McMansions and SUVs and TV screens as big as the front of a kitchen stove.

Once our basic needs are met, we need friends and family, satisfying work, and interesting things to do with our leisure.

[Atypical Liberal]

122. The genie is out of the bottle.

I don't want to "compete" with the world.

I'm sorry, but that genie is already out of the bottle. The fact of the matter is, if you want a job, you are now competing against people all over the world who are willing and able to do the same job. Unless you are employed doing an activity that requires a physical presence, like, say, building a brick wall, or repairing someone's car, or digging a ditch, you are going to be competing with the global pool of labor.

If you want to buy gasoline for your car, you are going to be competing to buy it on the global marketplace.

If you want to buy coal for your power plants, you are going to be competing to buy it on the global marketplace.

If you want to buy mineral ores to manufacture things, you are going to be competing to buy them on the global marketplace.

We are one world and one people, and the artificial walls of nations-states are fading away. As advances in communications and transportation increase, this will happen faster and faster.

[amandabeech]

217. Don't forget--

people come from all over to the U.S. every day even in these bad economic times and will gladly repair a car for a lot less than someone who hopes to help his kids with some sort of post-high school training. You're competing with a good section of the world for those jobs now.

I know I'll get hosed for saying it, but high levels of immigration in a bad economy does mean competing with the world for many of us who were not subject to such competition just a few years ago.

[BeHereNow]

123. Brilliant as usual, my dear...

The "pathological greed of those who can never have enough"
has no concern as to whether or not Americans have jobs.
That is the reality that most fail to understand.
The only way forward is what you have made clear.
Unfortunately, I don't think very many people will
comprehend it before they are hungry and homeless.

XO to You
BHN

[Kirbster]

126. I agree 100% with the OP

Unfortunately, the political reality is that a President has to do the "We're # 1! USA! USA!" paeans to American Exceptionalism in SOTU speeches, or risk political suicide. Remember the last President who tried to talk to the American people like they were adults? People found Jimmy Carter's honesty unpalatable, and promptly elected Ronald Reagan because he told them what they wanted to hear.

[LongTomH]

128. A wonderful and thoughtful post and a great dialogue!

America's obsession with competition and winning at any cost has led us down some pretty dark pathways. In most sports or arts, a few superstars compete for enormous rewards while some very good competitors are left behind.

That reaches to our two-party, winner-take-all government as well. In every other democracy, there are multiple parties and a parliamentary system where winners have to form coalitions to govern. Here, every time Republicans get a majority, they talk about "hunting Democrats with dogs in the halls of Congress" (Phil Gramm's phrase from the Reagan era!).

[aquamarina]

129. Beautifully stated post.

[JuniperLea]

130. I have a different perspective of that part...

I believe that all the things Obama mentioned as being part of what is needed for a "global economy" are also things that will make American strong again. He framed it as he did to get GOTP buy in, and I think it was brilliant. The GOTP has nothing.

[amyrose2712]

131. +++

[Uncle Joe]

136. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, scarletwoman.

[bluestateboomer]

137. Very eloquent

If we could just live up to our own ideals, then....maybe... we could reach out to the rest of the planet. Thank you scarletwoman.
:grouphug:

[harun]

138. Great post. Unfortunately we don't want to "compete" with Asia, but

the Representatives of the Corporations (the ones who run the country), do.

[Green_Lantern]

140. you're talking out of both sides of your mouth...

You say you don't want us to be in competition with the rest of the world yet you think we can provide for everything we need within our own borders and not even paying attention to what other nations' do.

That sounds more like sticking our heads in the sand and thus lagging behind the rest of the world. Obama wasn't being "jingoistic" he was just saying the US needs to keep up pace with the rest of the world.

The problem with your statement is that it is only concerned with division of material resources and hoping it'll be enough to fulfill basic human needs. Politics as usual is all about basic human needs and never looks at how to better humanity through technology.

Obama is the first President who gets it.

[stevenleser]

171. I think you are being too generous...

for one, the rest of the world's countries ARE competing with us and with each other. Since there are over 150 other countries out there, people suggesting that "competition should stop" shouldnt be focusing on one country and should have a convincing model that replaces it.

Since:
A. There is no global movement to stop competition
B. There is no convincing model with any success track record to replace it

This entire missive is hot air. It's attacking nationalism with negative nationalism, which, as Orwell indicated, is the same thing.

[Green_Lantern]

176. I think they're confusing competing with bullying...

But I just don't see Obama as just wanting us to be "number 1" thrown in the face of other nations. He just wants us to have the tools to take part in the technological age.

I was delighted to hear Obama advocate for the space program too.

[stevenleser]

220. I wish that were so. These folks really believe in no competition (or at least they think they do)

I`ve had this conversation with some of these same folks before. They believe a near-utopian society can exist with no competition. Its convoluted and I am sure if you ask the OP they will happily try to explain it to you.

[Green_Lantern]

226. the OP logic baffles me

nt

[fascisthunter]

233. nah... maybe it's just you

[Celeborn Skywalker]

141. Exactly.

I'm kind of a liberal isolationist, at least as far as foreign policy and trade (as it currently is, at least) goes. We need to stay out of other countries and learn to live with less cheap crap from China and India. You're right in that just with our vast and abundant natural resources, we could all live a comfortable lifestyle.

We just need to vote out and (in the case of some corporate barons)imprison the parasites who are ruining us.


*I don't think President Obama is a parasite but I do think he buys into the corporate narrative that free trade and American exceptionalism are to be accepted as the unquestionable truth.

[sabrina 1]

144. Well said, I think most people would agree with you.

Talking about how well the Market is doing does not resonate with the average American most of whom cannot afford to sit at home watching their stocks go up or down.

But that seems to be all that matters to this government. 'The Market is doing great, or not'.

People need jobs with livable wages that will support them and their families and that are secure.

:kick: and rec'd.

[bvar22]

146. Yes. We. Can. Compete with the World.

The American Working Class just needs to accpet the fact that:

* Less than $4.00 per day is the NEW median wage for workers

*We cannot possibly afford Work Place Safety and Environmental Protections

*Children of the lower 98% really don't need to be wasting time in schools.
Every family member in the Working Class (including children) should enter the work force

*Paid vacation, Sick Leave, Overtime, and 40 HR week are quaint relics of the past

*Luxuries for the Working Class like Health Care and Retirement need to be tossed aside so we can "WIN"

---If the Working Class does all the above, THEN we can be "competitive" in the World Labor market
Like it or not, THAT is where we are now headed.

The top 1% has been reassured that they will NEVER know a day of discomfort, even when they make BAD investments.
THAT was the problem in the last Gilded Age..
When the RICH made bad investments, they lost their money.
NOW, with the wisdom and foresight of the Republicans & Centrist Democrats,
THAT doesn't happen.
When the RICH lose money,
they simply take more form the children of the Working Class!!!!
Problem solved!!!

New and Improved Gilded Age 2.0, here we come.

[RufusTFirefly]

200. Bravo! I'm with bvar22!

And whatever we do, we mustn't ever criticize places like Wal-Mart, which use cheap labor and produce cheap goods to boost their own corporate profits while paying little or nothing in taxes. They are our best hope for a competitive future!!!

[G_j]

147. Right on, sw!

:hi: :hug:

[ElboRuum]

148. 'Competition is a destructive paradigm'

No. No it isn't. When it becomes a unitary focus, yes it is. But it does have a distinct positive outcome if we use it properly. I don't give a damn about being #1 either. However, I DO give a damn about being #46 or #82 or #31, at least on those things that matter (education, job creation, human rights, and all those other things that we know we should be excelling at but for well-known reasons don't). If anything, measuring our own performance against those more successful and then challenging ourselves to do better than we have been, I believe, is one of the more effective ways to move things forward. You may not need to be #1, but when a country of our affluence and influence starts to suck at the very things it once excelled at should be cause for alarm for anyone.

The point is we SHOULD be measuring up much more competitively than we have been, but I fear that we're worried about the things that don't matter, rather than the things that do.

[Octafish]

149. You must not have been paying attention during the campaign when "worker productivity" was mentioned

Just kidding.

Outstanding post, yours, scarletwoman. Every word.

There is no more time to beat around the, eh, bush. President Obama needs to wake up, not for his re-election, but for the nation's very survival.

[bobthedrummer]

150. K&R and remember we, the people don't require force multipliers

[swilton]

152. + 1,000

The problem with feeding the world is not with the supply of food or capacity to produce same, there is a problem with how the food is distributed.

[ck4829]

154. But don't you want to lower your quality of life so the 2% at the top can live better?

What's wrong with you?

:sarcasm:

K&R

[totodeinhere]

157. So apparently you wouldn't have competed with the Soviets to see who could make it to the moon...

first. But as President Obama mentioned in the SOTU address, the space race of the fifties and sixties provided technological advances that provided employment in many areas and helped to raise the standard of living of the American people.

I want to compete with auto makers in Asia so that Americans can have good paying jobs in the American auto industry. And the list goes on and on. Competitiveness is just human nature. If we realized your vision, we would all be subsistence farmers living off the land. Yes, we might actually have a healthier diet if we did that, but darn it, I would sure miss my computer and my satellite TV.

[robertpaulsen]

159. Competition is part and parcel of the Infinite Growth Paradigm.

But that fact will never be acknowledged in a SOTU address until the paradigm is changed:

http://americanjudas.blogspot.com/2010/02/primal-forces-of-nature-vs-real-primal.html">We need genuine balance, not the ebb and flow from "one vast and ecumenical holding company". That means as people, we must live in harmony within the natural physical limits of our planet. That means our economy must be based on sustainability, not growth. That means our money is no longer tied to wealth creation but is representative of energy, both the human energy we produce and the planet's energy that we utilize.

Excellent OP, scarletwoman. I think you have the right vision of what we need. Now the rest of us need to elect politicians who share that vision and hold them accountable when they stray from it!

[mcollins]

161. K&R +1!!!

YES.

[midnight]

162. k&R

[DeSwiss]

164. K&R n/t

[pacalo]

165. I agree wholeheartedly with every eloquent sentence you wrote. Kudos!

[Scottybeamer70]

166. Thank you!

I haven't been in DU very long, but that is the best written
post I've seen yet. Thank you!

[pacalo]

168. A hearty welcome to DU, scottybeamer!

:hi:

[chaska]

169. Competition is 20th-century. Cooperation is 21st-century.

[BobbyBoring]

172. Beautifully Stated

I'm with you. The race were running now is a race to the bottom. The only way we can compete with emerging giants like China, India, Brazil, etc is to lower ourselves to their standards. The lowering has already begun. Many won't be happy until those who still have jobs are working for $10.00 a day. Serfdom and Neo Feudalism are unsettling words to me

Screw the rest of the world! Let's take care of this great country we that we murdered and enslaved it's original owners out of~

[Blue Owl]

175. God Bless the USA -- screw everyone else

The path to global harmony has a few obstacles, it seems...

[scarletwoman]

216. We are about 5% of the global population consuming approx 25% of the planet's resources.

We're already screwing just about everyone else on the planet by stripping their natural resources, and exploiting their workers.

What if we scaled back and just lived on what we ourselves could produce?

What if we stopped propping up autocratic governments who oppress their citizens?

What if we said "no deal" to the multinational corporations who produce goods through child labor and slave labor?

What if we modeled a system of worker cooperatives making living wages through the ownership of production?

It's not a matter of "screw everyone else", it's a matter of changing from a dominance paradigm to a cooperative paradigm.

[Tace]

177. scarletwoman: Great Post!

BTW, let's get rid of the vampire squid:

"The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money." --Matt Taibbi

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405

[EndElectoral]

180. What do politicans mean when they say "compete"?

Essentially, it boils down to lower labor costs for American workers. It means that American goods will have to be cheaper so they are purchased abroad, and that comes in reducing labor costs.

It is bothersome because we have companies like Nike for example that make huge profits based on abusive labor practices aborad. Practices that have no regards for hard fought vicotries by labor in this country. For minimum wage, safe labor practices, the 40 hour work week, overtime pay, medical benefits, unemployment compensation, workers comp, etc. Nto to mention the abuse of environmental practices of countries abroad with no oversight.

The word "compete" buys into the so called "free enterprise" mantra. Slavery was essential the South declared pre-Civil war so that they could "compete" with other countries.

So, what has "competition" led to?

1. Environment - Since most manufacturing has been outsourced to countries with little environmental regulation, the chance of greenhouse gases has only expanded with the US with little international power to affect other polluting countries like China and India. Had most manufacturing remained here, we may have had some regulatroy control.

2. Wages - Wage have been stagnant for years. This is due to increased automation, and more outsourcing to countries where labor costs are signficantly below our minimum wage, and where in some cases workers do not have the right to unionize. This is not competition, but an uneven playing board for workers vs owners.

3. Taxes - Since many are now out of work, they are not contributing to the tax base signficantly. This has led to more and more borrowing to simply maintain the infrastructure, and social programs we take pride in and our fathers and mothers benefitted from. With this borrowing we are creating a larger and larger debt. The GOP solution is to cut programs that benefit people, and pray for trickle down. It hasn't worked.

4. Manufacturing - We simply make so little here, and hence have little to compete with. We have got to bring maufacturing back to America.

I was highly dissapointed with Obama's pep rally for the notion of competitiveness and free enterprise to provide the answer.

We are on an unfair playing field. Unless you change the economic rules, we are facing more of the same.

[raouldukelives]

184. K&R

[eppur_se_muova]

187. We have always been in competition with Eastasia. nt

[Better Believe It]

188. K & R

[tilsammans]

189. K&R!!! One of the best posts and threads EVER on DU!

Says it ALL!

:applause:

[Beringia]

191. Agree

Also his mention of winning awards in science fairs by our children should be the goal, what about the humanities? I think that is lop-sided to only be concerned with technologies. He also made mention of bringing ROTC onto all college campuses, instead of finding ways to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[mdmc]

192. thanks for the OP

peace and low stress
r

[Puregonzo1188]

193. Yeah, I found that to be a turn-off too.

[Desertrose]

197. Yessss.....you are spot on!!

Thank you for speaking for me!! Being #1 is meaningless when you get down to the nitty gritty...we need to forget competing and get with co-creating the best we can for each other.



BTW, have I mentioned lately that you totally rock!! :hug:

:loveya:

[scarletwoman]

234. Hey, DR!!!!

Wow, it's always such a joy to see you on the board! 10 years now, and we're still here! :woohoo:

Thank you for your most kind words! I hope you know, I will ALWAYS think that YOU totally rock, too!

I love that you wrote "co-creating" -- that's exactly the direction we need to travel. Let us trust each other and commit to working together to co-create a finer future than what the sociopaths in power have in mind.

:loveya:
sw

[scarletwoman]

198. To all those who have responded on this thread, my humble thanks.

And I wholeheartedly include all those who disagreed with my OP as much as those who agreed and supported it.

I'm delighted, of course, that one of my extremely rare OPs generated so much discussion. I've read every single post on this thread (up to the point at which I started composing this post), and there are many to which I'd like to reply specifically -- both pro and con.

I'll do what I can after I post this. I just first wanted to thank you all for joining in this discussion. The respectful exchange of viewpoints that I see on this thread represents the very best of DU.

I commend all of you for your thoughtfulness and sincere analysis.

You all rock! :yourock:

Thank you,
sw

[Scruffy1]

199. I'm sick of this beating the other guy crap

Does it mean I have to make Ahmad or Jaime starve so I can get a new bauble to impress my friends?
Interesting that Mondragon of Spain, which is a cooperative, has one of the worlds most productive workforces.
Cooperation not competition.

[saras]

204. You don't have to be better to win

It's the nature of competition that it's nearly always more effective to sabotage your competitors than it is to "beat" them fairly.

Cooperation and symbiosis have as much to do with how life evolved as competition did.

Pretty much every substantial rise in the quality of life for people in the last couple of centuries was accompanied by wholesale violation of 'intellectual property' rights - China, Switzerland, Germany, Japan, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, or as Ha-Joon Chang summarizes in his BRILLIANT "23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism" (I HIGHLY recommend this book, by the way), "To sum up, the free-trade, free-market policies are policies that have rarely, if ever, worked. Most of the rich countries did not use such policies when they were developing countries themselves, while these policies have slowed down growth and increased income inequality in the developing countries in the last three decades. Few countries have become rich trhough free-trade, free-market policies and few ever will." - p73

A nice summary of the book is http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=3489|here>.

[bluestate10]

210. The world wants to compete with you.

And take the standard of living and physical comfort that you take for granted. You can sing kumbaya and wait to hold hands with the world, I prefer to see the world as it is, with good people, but some that are selfish and in some cases, outright homicidal.

[mommalegga]

212. I dont think that the President was saying we need to compete

so that we can "DOMINATE"...I think that need to compete is so we can SURVIVE!
The rest of the world is willing to eat our lunch if we let them.

Wether we like it or not, we live in a global marketplace; and just like in nature, its the survival of the fittest.

It can get real ugly

Tom

[Agony]

214. Oh for the day! When our President would have you as his/her speech writer!!

and trusted advisor...

still OK to dream? .... right?


Cheers!
Agony

[moondust]

219. K/R

Ahh, what could have been...

[Odin2005]

222. Competition turns on the violent, brutal side of human nature.

The side that was about protecting the interests of your tribe against the next tribe. It is a backwards and primitive way of thinking.

Cooperation activates the altruistic side of human nature, that which is involved in loving one's neighbor.

[blindpig]

228. It's a ruling class thing...

just another way of setting workers against workers.

[scarletwoman]

231. Well and succinctly put. (nt)

[Kurovski]

239. But...but...but...Obama's a Socialist.

My tired old ass he is. He needs to skootch a wee to the left.

In all the wrangling over his SOTU, I failed to mention that it was indeed a good POLITICAL speech, but was absolutely surreal as to what's going on where I am.

It was all politics, as his campaign now begins in earnest.

I just crawled out of my sick bed to see this, I wish i could have recc'd, but it did just fine without me. :D

I'll be fine.

[upi402]

240. If Jesus or Dr King were to return

There would be some asswhoopin' going down!

[lanlady]

241. I had the exact same reaction to SOTU

Not everything has to be about competition. Global COOPERATION is what is needed now to fight climate change, overpopulation, and the looming crisis of natural resources. What does more ra ra USA gain us? Nothing. American workers *have* given their all, only to see their jobs shipped overseas and their economic futures undermined by corporate greed. Running another "race" to the top of the heap is just another cheap political distraction from the real problems.