11.15.2007 | Too easy to be green?

Ecstasy is all you need
Living in the big machine now …
Now your world is way too fast
Nothing's real and nothing lasts

These lyrics from the Goo Goo Dolls' 2002 release, Gutterflower, serve as pretext to a larger point about the state of the auto industry ahead of this week's Los Angeles Auto Show, not just in America but abroad as well. As German automakers struggle to increase fuel efficiency, America's largest, GM, is celebrating today's pronouncement of its 2007 Chevy Tahoe Hybrid — using a hybrid drive co-developed with its German counterparts — as Green Car of the Year.

Excuse me. Chevy Tahoe? Green? Car?

This effusive article from Reuters praises the Tahoe as "the first full-size hybrid SUV" that gets "21 miles per gallon in the city, the same as a Toyota Camry sedan." 21 miles per gallon? Break out the champagne! We can all go home now.

Even more galling is this gem from GM spokesman Dave Barthmuss:

When you think of a hybrid, you think of a small car that has been built from the ground up to eke out the most miles, but now you can have that kind of system in a large vehicle.

Yes, by all means! Let's throw away any mileage gains that could come from designing a new kind of SUV with efficiency in mind and just throw an electric motor on the existing one. That's progress! (To be fair, GM did make the doors out of aluminum, but most likely only to offset the added weight from the hybrid drive train.)

GM's mild Malibu and Aura hybrids, meanwhile, eke out only small mileage gains (perhaps why GM is advertising them as America's "most affordable" hybrids — they can't win on engineering).

Honda, for its part, is rolling out the first hydrogen fuel cell production car in the middle of next year to a "limited" number of customers in southern California for a bargain $600 per month ("affordable," according to MSNBC — we can only hope they took "relatively speaking" as granted). Good luck finding a filling station!

The Los Angeles Times' Dan Neil takes a longer view, saying that automakers cannot "throw a switch" and turn all their cars into hybrids at once — though that's exactly what GM seems to have done with its Tahoe. And, again according to Neil, automakers have more reason to appear green than just good PR:

Consider the context of this year's auto show. The price of oil is flirting with $100 a barrel. Recent studies suggest that, as the energy demands of emerging giants India and China increase, world oil consumption could rise 55% by 2030. Even oil executives concede we cannot drill or mine enough to satisfy that kind of energy appetite.

Two automakers seem to be headed in the right direction. Ford's CEO, Alan Mulally, talked about reducing vehicle weight as a means to increase fuel efficiency. Toyota, meanwhile, has a concept car with reduced weight instead of added batteries (though its larger image as a green company may be faltering).

On the plus side, automakers are finally waking up to the reality that oil is a finite resource. Their attempts at introducing greener technologies, if self-serving, are about as much as survival as social responsibility. But as they fight higher fuel economy standards at the same time, by and large their green effrontery remains a façade.

9.11.2007 | AT&T cuts the cord

Pity the reader who didn't read beyond the headline of this USA Today story about AT&T's new chairman and CEO, Randall Stephenson. Their choice for a headline? "AT&T shifts to wireless focus with new ads and color" (yawn). The color orange isn't new for AT&T, which has kept the color during its transition away from the Cingular brand. What is new is that AT&T is no longer going to require landline phone service to benefit from package pricing for its broadband Internet service. Now there's a story.

Also of note (at the very end of the story):

AT&T is beefing up its global profile and trying to cut better "roaming" deals with international wireless carriers to carry calls from iPhones and its other devices.

"We pretty much cover the globe now," Stephenson says. "We just want to cover it cheaper."

Last time I checked, AT&T's roaming plan requires charges of at least $1 a minute. That their CEO is focused on making that price lower, along with his willingness to end the requirement of landline phone service for broadband, is a good sign that AT&T may finally be grasping the potential for wireless communication in the global age. My one criticism: the tagline. "Your seamless world"? I suppose it's a start.

5.01.2007 | Delta's new design

Delta unveiled a new logo and Web site after emerging from Chapter 11 bankruptcy Monday, a design that aims at enhancing Delta's new international stance.

Over the past two years the airline has cut jobs and cut domestic routes, which are facing intense competition from low-fare airlines, in favor of more lucrative international destinations, which have yet to face the same competitive pressure.

The new logo, with a more sophisticated typeface and colors, seems to be aimed at gaining that type of clientèle. United has pursued a similar approach with its "It's time to fly" campaign that uses its classic Rhapsody in Blue theme in conjunction with artistic animations.

But what stood out to me wasn't just the sparse design of Delta's new livery (which incidentally saves Delta money because it uses less paint), but the bad puns on the site's home page and the press release announcing their emergence and rebranding. "'Brand' new era," "chapter of success." Who works for these guys?

5.13.2006 | The hatchback is back

Just in time for record-high gas prices, small cars are making a comeback. Derided as ugly in the 1970s and 80s, today's hatchbacks are slim, sleek and begging for attention. The new 2007 Toyota Yaris (pictured above, in blue) gets 40 mpg highway, more than any gasoline-only car I know of. It definitely has my attention – normally I wouldn't care about gas mileage, but with gas prices so high and the road trip I'm taking this summer, I did a little research. For people who can't afford hybrids (like me when I get my first car, most likely), the Yaris is an excellent choice.

On the other hand, the Volkswagen Rabbit is making a comeback. After 22 years of being sold under the worldwide "Golf" nameplate, VW is betting that a little nostalgia, a lower starting price and a fresh redesign will make the vehicle competitive in the small car once again. It comes with loads of standard features, and it has a 5-cylinder engine (makes me wonder what the mileage will be). Still, it will be on my radar. Lots of great hatchbacks out there (or as Toyota calls their Yaris model, a "liftback") – lower starting price and great gas mileage to boot.

3.06.2006 | Merger Mania: AT&T's bid for Bell South

Wow. We've come a long way from the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which was designed to increase competition between local and long-distance telephone providers. Here is a list of the major companies that existed then:

- Bell Atlantic
- Nynex
- Ameritech
- Southwestern Bell (SBC)
- Pacific Telesis
- Bell South
- U.S. West (Qwest)
- GTE

Now, Bell Atlantic, NYNEX and GTE are Verizon.

Pacific Tel, Ameritech and Southwestern Bell, once merged to form SBC, are now part of "the new AT&T" since SBC acquired AT&T within the last few months. Verizon has acquired MCI as well. The point of the 1996 act was to foster competition between long-distance and local companies for each others' access, but now they have merged.

Why? A regulatory ruling by the Bush administration's Federal Communications Commissions ruled that local companies no longer had to lease their lines to competitors at reduced rates; a key measure of the 1996 act that made competition possible. After this ruling was issued, AT&T exited the local telephone market, and the merger between SBC and AT&T happened. It's interesting because these companies were once mortal enemies – SBC arguing for higher line lease rates and AT&T joining a coalition called Voices for Choices that argued for the 1996 subsidies. A television advertising battle in the nation's capital ensued. But now that the merger is closed, voicesforchocies.com is most certainly offline.

The only untouched companies are Qwest and Bell South, companies with a strong regional interest. No longer.

SBC, the new AT&T, has made a $67 billion bid to acquire Bell South. The country's local telephone companies would go from four to three. Also interesting is how Cingular is involved, as it was a joint venture between Bell South and SBC, but would now become part of the new AT&T. AT&T Wireless, a spinoff of the old AT&T, was just acquired by Cingular last year.

Where does this leave the consumer? Well, it does leave Qwest as the country's only independent local telephone provider. But competition from cable, and perhaps power companies in the future, may make telephone competition a thing of the past as companies act to consolidate infrastructure. As one Associated Press article put it, it's one step away from recreating the "Ma Bell" monopoly of the 1980s.

I don't know what to think. I know I do like the idea of SBC and Bell South coming together to provide Cingular wireless services under the AT&T brand. But I wonder what the prognosis is for long-term communications competition, especially since it seems the mergers are far from over. If Bell South can be bought, it's just going to be a question of who will pay for Qwest – it already sold of its wireless assets to Verizon within the past year or so. We'll be left with only two regional providers – AT&T and Verizon. How can that be good for the consumer?

2.27.2006 | Wal-Mart needs our help!

Apparently the world's largest retailer, a company with somewhere on the order of $10 billion in profits a year, can't afford to pay for health care for its employees! States already pick up the slack for Wal-Mart's low wages and benefits by providing affordable housing and Medicaid benefits, but Wal-Mart's CEO is asking governors to do more. If Wal-Mart can't afford to pay for its employees' health care, who can afford health care anymore?

1.20.2006 | The end of Independence Air

Update: As of 1/22/06, it appears the Independence Air Web site is no longer online.

I flew Independence Air once in 2000 when it was still known as Atlantic Coast Airways, a feeder for United Express service on the East Coast. I flew from Dulles to Indianapolis, and it was one of the best domestic flight experiences I ever had on a small plane. It was a regional jet, not a turboprop, so the cabin was quiet, and the flight was very smooth, and most importantly, non-stop. This is the kind of freedom Independence Air offered when it broke away from United in 2004 to start its own (independent) service – plenty of non-stop flights from Dulles, but with lower fares.

Now that independence is gone, and the giants of the Washington market like United are free to raise fares again. Under bankruptcy United has largely restructured itself in the model of a low-fare airline. With the exception of "Economy Plus" seats added for more legroom, seats have become narrower and the same planes are carrying fewer passengers, a model pioneered by Southwest Airlines, the original low-fare carrier in the 80s. Legroom is fine, but it's difficult to navigate eating a meal or typing on a laptop without the necessary elbow room.

In any case, the collapse of Independence Air shows the final result of airline deregulation begun in the 1980s: a decline in the quality of airline service in a race to the bottom to provide the lowest fares. That is the inevitable result of laissez faire capitalism, as we have seen with Wal-Mart and the like providing lower prices, but inferior goods.

The middle class is disappearing in this country as cheap Chinese TV sets flood the market, but the quality sets sell for more than the average American can afford. The same principle applies to airline seats: narrower seats for the coach class, and ever-increasing amenities for those who are willing to pay a premium by flying first class.

Not only that, but airlines have stopped offering meals on board. People always used to complain about airline food, but for a while in the 90s United was using gourmet chefs. In a campaign called "United Airlines rising," it admitted the bad state of airline food and showed what it was doing to improve. Now all that's gone, meals replaced with "snack packs," sandwiches and wraps. The flying experience has been reduced to a lunch line, all for the sake of deregulation and the resulting race to the bottom for the lowest fare.

On cheap Chinese TV sets:

On the race to the bottom for low fares:

With the departure of Independence Air, though, opportunites have opened up for competitor JetBlue, which is going to start offering service to Boston, a small consolation prize. Better service is actually available from Richmond because it files from there to JFK, the airline's hub, allowing connections to more destinations on par with what Independence Air was able to offer.

So why did Independence Air fail? As I mentioned in the first paragraph, it used smaller planes. These smaller planes, the majority of FlyI's fleet, presented a significantly higher cost per mile per passenger than the rest of the industry, and it couldn't sustain its low-fare business without switching to bigger planes. It never quite made the switch, and so it went bust. As it turns out, FlyI ended its service to the West Coast in November 2005 before it went out of business completely this year. I didn't know when I visited San Francisco this summer that it would be the last time I would see a D.C.-based airline on the West Coast.

Alas, poor Independence Air, I knew ye well.

12.26.2005 | The color of temptation

"What is the color of temptation?" is the question posed by a recent Panasonic ad for high-definition TVs. For me, the color of temptation is black and yellow (incidentally, yellow was the color of the fire hydrant in the Panasonic commercial eyed by a small dog – it's also one of my school colors). These are the colors of the new Sprint, and this snazzy new phone that's currently available buy one get one free for $49.

I'm tired of Cingular's two-year agreement (I'm currently one year through), and I'm so unhappy with my phone that I'm going to pay the $150 termination fee just so I can take advantage of Sprint's offer. They have fairer terms, and only a one-year commitment. I'm going to the store tomorrow to try out the phone in person, but from what I know of Samsung before, it's a sweet phone (my current Motorola loses its charge in a day and locks up every now and then, less than a year out).

Update (12/27/05): I went to go try out the phone at the Sprint store the other day, and it's not so great after all. Though the prospect of greater network coverage (at least in Va.) is tempting, the voice quality is not as good as Cingular. The phone was also cheap and plasticky just like the current Motorola I despise so much. There just are no good cell phones anymore. I might get a Nokia 1100 because at least I know it won't fall apart.

11.30.2005 | The end of Blackberry?

It just doesn't seem fair. While NTP certainly deserves damages for Blackberry's alleged infringement, it just doesn't seem fair that millions of customers will have to suffer as the result of enforcement of patent law. Many other cases have been settled out of court. Even in this case, where a punishment must be rendered, why not levy Blackberry with a fine or force it to pay royalties to the patent holder?

11.29.2005 | Firefox 1.5 unleashed

New browser, new Web site. Mozilla.com officially launched today, the online home of the newly formed Mozilla Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the non-profit foundation that first spawned its namesake browsing suite and now the browser that goes by the Firefox name. Key to Firefox's success has been its corporate branding, and with today's launch of Mozilla.com the open-source organization takes it a step further by making themselves more accessible to the public with a dot-com address. Go them.

Meanwhile, you should really download the latest version of the Mozilla Firefox browser. It's faster and better than ever, with built-in support for some surprising features, all with still under a 5 MB download for Windows users. If you're still using IE, which still goes basically unchanged since 2000, it's time to try something new.

11.23.2005 | Lugz to Apple: 'Cease and Desist'

Seen that new Apple ad with Eminem lately? It might have looked familiar for a reason:

Lugz (2002)	Apple (2005)

Plagiarism? You be the judge. I love Apple, but it does seem like their ad agency used the Lugz commercial as a jumping off point for theirs. I remember the ad seemed familiar when I saw it, but I couldn't quite place it. This definitely explains it. But then again, who's going to confuse an iPod ad with an ad for shoes? Apple's ad clearly follows the silhouette covnention used in previous ads, and there enough differences that copyright may not be an issue. Still, it shows that when people use ideas they should try to ask permission first.

8.13.2005 | Global warming clearer than ever

For the record: Kyoto is only the first step. It doesn't eliminate carbon emissions, and the ones we've already put in the air still haven't taken full effect. Carbon dioxide increases the earth's ability to trap heat, just as the super-heated surface of Venus doesn't come just from its close proximity to the sun, but because of its thick CO2 atmosphere. It takes time for the Earth to absorb that heat and trap it -- more of it will be trapped with each successive season as temperatures become warner every year.

Still not convinced? This informative article from Wired magazine shows how discrepancies in measurements from the 1970s have been resolved: the earth's temperature is rising even faster than previously thought. Think about it: the only people out there trying to disprove the existence of global warming are those who have the most to lose if we switch away from oil as our primary source of energy (cough cough, ExxonMobil) -- and with higher than ever oil prices, maybe swtiching away wouldn't be the worst idea anyway.

6.06.2005 | Apple & Intel together "at last"

So I learned today that Apple is finally switching to the dark side. After shunning Intel's x86 architecture in the entire 20-30 year history of computing, Apple is finally making the switch to Intel, meaning no major computer manufacturer will be using non-x86 architecture. What is x86 architecture? It's the same thing that powered the first IBM personal computer, MS-DOS, and all the old junky stuff we'd like to forget from the early days of computing.

This isn't the first time Apple has made a deal with the devil. In 1998 it announced a partnership with Microsoft in which it distributed Microsoft's Internet Explorer with every Mac, for a time making every computer in the world come with Microsoft's ubiquitous browser. It seems with each new deal Apple's reason for existence -- raison d'être, that is -- seems to fade into the distance.

Not necessarily. The adaptation of Mac OS X to Intel's x86 architecture means that the operating system could someday be offered for ordinary PC users to be installed on their systems, which was always maintained as a possibility when Mac OS X, based on NextStep/OpenStep, Steve Jobs' old company, became the primary operating system for Macintosh systems. In fact Jobs revealed at this week's conference that every version of OS X since the first in 2001 has been "living a secret life" -- capable of running on both Intel-based and PowerPC-based systems (PowerPC are the IBM chips Apple currently uses to power its systems).

The ability to run on Intel processors also introduces some tantalizing propositions. In 2007 the new version of Windows (codenamed Longhorn) will be out, and its requirements of advanced graphics rendering capabilities similar to those already found on the Mac might enable PC users to run Mac OS X on their PCs (though we'll have to see if this is the route Apple decides to take to promote its OS).

The most powerful case Steve Jobs made for switching to Intel was a performance indicator called "performance per watt" -- a watt being the amount of power a processor has to use to achieve a certain number of functions. PowerPC chips, including the latest G5 which for now can only run on desktops, require too much power to fit into laptops and provide the advanced performance that Intel will be offering in the near future. This is the most commonsense reason Apple had to make the switch.

Now, what does it mean to Mac users, or those who are planning to buy a Mac? Not to worry. The switch to Intel in no way means your existing PowerPC Mac is outdated. At the conference Jobs demonstrated some amazing capabilities of OS X which will provide backward-compatible support for PowerPC programs on Intel computers, and the transition to Intel-based programs will allow for "double binary" programs that can run on both Intel and PowerPC systems for the foreseeable future.

The most exciting aspect is that PowerPC programs will be able to run on the Intel machines with amazing smoothness and reliability, with no visible program or emulator running. A feature of OS X called "Rosetta" automatically translates PowerPC programs onto the Intel architecture, allowing the system to run flawlessly. Meanwhile, existing PowerPC users will be able to continue to purchase new programs offering support for both PowerPC and Intel-based OS X processors.

After watching the Developers Conference video on apple.com, I am still 100% convinced that I still need to buy a Mac now to take advantage of OS X Tiger's latest features, features that won't be available on Windows until 2007. By then, Apple will have a new version out already, and you can buy a new Intel-based Apple as time (and budget) permits. This is a major shakeup in the computing world, but everyone can continue to benefit from Apple's superior feature set and enjoyable user experience.

If you haven't already, you can watch the video here. On Apple QuickTime, of course.

2.02.2005 | End of the line

The buyout of AT&T by SBC this week is symbolic on many levels, but most importantly it marks the end of an era in telecommunications. AT&T traces its history to Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, and it was once the invincible monopoly the government broke up in 1984 in the name of increasing competition in long-distance telephone service.

Now here's the irony of the SBC-AT&T deal: SBC, once known as Southwestern Bell, was one of the "baby bells" created by the breakup of the old Bell monopoly AT&T had in 1984. So in essence SBC is buying its former parent. Now the AT&T SBC is buying isn't the same one that existed in 1984: in 2000 AT&T announced it was reorganizing into four separate companies: consumer, business, wireless, and broadband. The broadband division has since been purchased by Comcast, and the wireless division is now owned by Cingular -- notably enough, Cingular is a joint venture between SBC and Bell South.

So the AT&T SBC is buying is mainly its business division, followed by its consumer division. But the consumer division is what consumers should be most concerned about. In 1996, the Telecommunications Act passed by Congress was only supposed to allow local phone service providers like SBC to provide long-distance service if they provided similar competition at the local level. Last year an FCC ruling ended this requirement, which forced AT&T to leave the local phone market and may have spelled its ultimate doom as a phone service provider. (In fact, AT&T was involved in a media war with SBC over this very FCC ruling -- see http://www.voicesforchoices.org)

Now the other bell companies will be pressured to buy a former long-distance competitor, leading to fewer consumer choices. This will leave most Americans with only two choices for phone service: a former baby bell or the only local cable company. Hardly the competition envisioned by the 1996 act.

One can only hope that local phone competition will someday be resurrected to give consumers the best choices in service, with or without AT&T in the business.

1.26.2005 | It's getting to the point

It's getting to the point where I'm getting tired of pointing out the hypocrisies of Republicans, and the social problems created by companies like Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart recently unveiled an ad campaign and a new Web site, walmartfacts.com, to counter its critics. Sure 74 percent of Wal-Mart employees work full time, but by the company's standards "full time" is only 28 hours. But how do I explain that to the security guard I talked to today who merely groaned and said "it's cheap" when I explained that I wouldn't want people to shop at Wal-Mart. Sure it's cheap; that's why foreign companies are making our household products now and costing U.S. jobs.

As for Republican hypocrisy, first we had Bush awarding his medals of freedom to failed figures in his failed Iraq policy, then the trashing of ethics by the party of morals, and so on. It's starting to get old, as if it were the accepted status quo. I'm tired of complaining. But how else can it ever be changed?

Update (5/16/07): Now that the Onion has posted its entire archive online, I can point you to this particularly relevant article by The Onion.

12.28.2004 | Welcome to the new Cingular

Well apparently the only thing new about the new Cingular is that AT&T customers have to transfer their numbers to Cingular to get Cingular's old calling plans with rollover, and that AT&T's network will eventually combine with Cingular's to provide "the largest digital voice and data network in America," the so-called "Allover Network."

"Allover" is actually a pretty good name for it, since together AT&T and Cingular work just about anywhere, and all-digital GSM is a whole lot better than Verizon's staticky CDMA/analog hybrid. The AT&T/Cingular network is also much larger than T-Mobile's, so I decided to make the leap and do a 2-year agreement to get a free camera phone.

The new phone I got isn't as nice as the one I got with AT&T, but at least it has a camera. I'm spending the evening at Murky Coffee/Common Grounds in Arlington, where I took this first picture with my new camera phone. I think I got the best of all possible (wireless) worlds, or at least I hope so. Either way, I'm stuck with it for the next two years, unless I want to pay a $150 termination fee. Welcome to the new Cingular indeed.

7.22.2004 | Smart Energy Policy... from Business?

Normally, you'd expect environmental reforms to come from laws. The Clean Air and Clean Water acts of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1990s especially come to mind. But what about when business finds a way to serve the environment because it actually coincides with their need to make a profit? One such example is the Greenville, S.C. BMW plant, which has become a plant in more ways than one. Not only does it make cars, but it also powers its own electricity using escaping Methane gas from a nearby landfill.

It may not sound environmentally friendly because of the source of the fuel, but in fact using Methane gas to generate electricity helps the environment by reducing emissions of a potent greenhouse gas. Escaping gas that comes from the decomposing trash in landfills usually ends up in the atmosphere, where it can be as much as 23 times more effective than the well-known greenhouse gas carbon dioxide at trapping heat from the sun's rays, accelerating global climate change. Burning the Methane, on the other hand, produces minimal carbon dioxide emissions, creating a net positive effect for the environment.

My question is: if this method of producing electricity is good enough for businesses, why isn't it good enough for our government? The last president to make a commitment to renewable energy was Jimmy Carter, and that was because we found ourselves in the middle of an energy crisis. Today we're dealing with record gas prices, and the only renewable energy proposal on the table -- which may not be as renewable as it sounds -- is hydrogen-powered cars. The rest of the current administration's energy policy focuses on creating more production of current energy sources.

We never got anywhere by sticking to the status quo. Government can be a positive force in society to achieve great things, not the least of which was our journey to the moon and the vast progress we've made in space exploration since then. As long as we're sending satellites to kingdom come, why can't we create more innovative energy sources like these here at home? Let's just hope this example out of South Carolina will be followed, and that it will encourage the government -- local, state, and federal -- to take a look at how it can promote more common-sense solutions like these.

7.21.2004 | Credit Where Credit is Due

What's in your wallet? Traveling the Capital Beltway one day I saw a large alumnium-colored building rising from the ground in Tysons Corner, a Virginia suburb of Washington, D.C., with a sign out front that read "Future Home of Capital One National Headquarters." The headquarters, it turned out, were previously located in Richmond, Virginia, 100 miles further away from the most influential city in the world. Less than a year later I learned in Mother Jones magazine that Capital One in recent election cycles was second only to MBNA in ratio of political contributions given to the GOP over Democrats (MBNA's 350% to Capital One's 267).

It turns out most major credit card companies, with the exception of Providian, give at least marginally more to the GOP because Republicans tend to favor tougher legislation making it harder for people to declare bankruptcy and rid themselves of their credit card debt. This makes sense for Capital One, who in the past has been accused of giving out credit cards too easily to people without sufficient credit history, a practice I consider akin to predatory lending. These uncreditworthy people abuse these cards and then they're trapped with debt that, thanks to the credit card companies' lobbying efforts, they can't easily escape. We might as well go back to the days when people were jailed for not paying their debts.

Adding final insult to injury, I read in today's Richmond Times-Dispatch that Capital One is firing 30% of its U.S. call center workforce, at a time when it is reaping record profits. Another reason Capital One might support Republicans more is because they favor these kind of job-cutting measures to increase corporate profits -- "global competitiveness" they call it. The Times article states that the jobs will be contracted to "U.S.-based companies," but as any recent call to Capital One customer service can tell you, these same companies will probably sub-contract out those jobs to India, so they will make a profit off both cheap labor, while Capital One's savings are only limited because they are paying a contractor to do what they could do themselves.

This is a prime example of what's wrong with America today, where corporations are totally shirking their social responsibility to their home team for minimal gains in profits. A Capital One spokesman cited the "competitiveness" of the credit card industry, but will they lose customers for keeping jobs in the United States? No. They want to be just that much more profitable than the next company, even if America suffers for it in terms of lost jobs. This is the kind of corporate "Benedict Arnolds" John Kerry was talking about when he was on the campaign trail in the primaries, and it's the kind of corporate behavior I'd like to see any party, Republican or Democrat, fix when they take over control of the government after the November elections.