If the Chinese workers can manufacture more efficiently than US workers, why should consumers be forced to support US workers? The products would have to cost more. If the efficiency disparity is an effect of US companies participating in the unfair treatment of Chinese workers, or the exorbitant cost of doing business in the US, perhaps due to certain union activities or ridiculous health care cost, then those are in themselves issues to be surfaced and addressed, and not simply that Chinese workers are getting jobs and US workers are not. Yes, Grove's position sounds like a populist one to me.

Replace the digits with numbers? 0->A, 1->B, 2->C, ...? Alas, there must be those who don't know the English alphabet.

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2010/March/21031001.asp

"As punishment for not doing your homework, go out and play at the Play pump for one hour so that your brother, who did his homework, can play Halo. Make sure you play hard."

Government anti-trust law action against companies purportedly level the playing field and empowers everyone to compete equally, giving more power to consumers. However, the anti-trust laws are vague and it is hard to tell when a company has violated them. Thus, the government itself gets broad powers to interpret the laws. If the government were really interested in leveling the playing field and empowering many industry players and consumers, instead of itself, it would do something to make those laws clearer. By maintaining vague laws, the government keeps for itself the monopoly to rule on a case-by-case basis what's allowed and what's not. The government itself is guilty of violating the principles of the anti-trust laws.

If the fossil is so complete, why does the article lack a picture of the fossil itself? Without pictures of the fossil, how can you believe what they say about whatever they find or postulate?

...a lot of these companies are publicly traded, which means that the public already own a share directly (e.g. stocks) or indirectly (e.g. mutual or pension funds). So, Obama is going to force them to pay more taxes for overseas operation hoping somehow that jobs will reappear in the US. Even if this works, it will hurt the people who own the stocks because profitability and thus stock price will drop. Obama should consider the total impact, and not just one side of the equation. It can be easily be construed that his hidden agenda is really to expand his socialistic agenda by further increasing government control, and the tax haven argument is just an excuse.