For what it's worth, I don't think you're being a dick about Apple. I just disagree about the stuff I'm aware of, and am deliberately not taking it upon myself to dig much deeper. Because then I'd have to come to the terms with the fact that it's absurd that someone with my income could have as much stuff as I do. And it's probably good to maintain a healthy skepticism about any company that has such a cultish following, and whose advertising doesn't hesitate to talk about itself in terms of "magic." (Even though I don't know how to describe the MacBook Air as anything other than a gift from the heavens, albeit the MagSafe 2 connector sucks balls).

I definitely agree that I'd pay more if they opened up production plants in the US — I don't know if I'd still be as actively stimulating the economy if it were twice as much, but it wouldn't turn me off altogether. I'm already so spoiled by the products that they don't really need to compete on price anymore. The problem is that I don't know how exactly they'd start that process.

The Guardian article you linked to, and the NYT article that we both keep mentioning, both had the same fault: they put APPLE in the headline and spend paragraphs talking about iPads and iPhones, and then several paragraphs in, almost as an afterthought, mention that Foxconn supplies parts to just about every tech manufacturer. (Their example story even mentions a worker making parts for the Kindle, but only mentions Amazon in passing and keeps all the emphasis on Apple). I don't want to harp on that too much, because it has a connotation that it's okay for Apple because "everybody else is doin' it!"

Maybe Apple really is in a unique position to fix things, since they've got so much money stockpiled. But with the market as competitive as it is, and with companies already selling some devices at a loss just to try and get a foothold into the iPad-and iPhone-dominated market, I have to wonder what would be the repercussions of saying "That's it, we're dropping you clowns and getting a more expensive supplier." By all accounts, Apple's already making a healthy profit margin on everything it sells, so maybe it wouldn't be as risky for them as I'm making it out to be. Maybe paying, say, $50 or $100 more per laptop or tablet would be enough to pay for a more responsible supplier, and the company's got so much momentum now that it wouldn't make a dent in their sales. (But then, I wonder if another supplier would be able to even meet the demand?)

I am pretty sure that Samsung, HP, Amazon, Microsoft and Google wouldn't think twice about continuing to use Foxconn. (Maybe Microsoft, because for whatever reason, they strike me as the company that wants to be better but just can't help itself). Half of me thinks it's unfair to single out Apple as being the sole conscience of the entire tech industry; the other half realizes that it's Apple's current CEO who orchestrated the situation that they're in now, since he's the one who did all he could to make sure they could sell the iPad for less than $600 in the first place.

So yeah. Mitt Romney, huh? Not to break up this new-found detente between us, but I think he could be more of a train wreck: if he were Santorum, Bachmann, or Herman Cain. I do like the idea of the illuminati that controls the GOP deep within its volcano lair just looking at the campaign, and especially the coverage of his overseas junket, and just shaking their heads. You couldn't genetically engineer a more appropriate GOP candidate: he says nothing except for the party line, and he's basically a 1950s cartoon dad made flesh.

Edit: I forgot to mention Gingrich, so that's a good thing. With everything else that's horrible in the world, I still managed to let myself forget that Newt Gingrich exists. So things can't be all bad, right?