Why am I writing this story again?

This is the third Christmas in a row that I have written about Barbara, the woman who stands outside the building where I work begging for money.  The first two times were Second and First.

She is thinner now, if that is possible, than the first time I wrote about her.  I have seen her with cuts and bruises, and broken bones.  She has disappeared for days at a time, only to return with stories of being in the hospital.  Sometimes it has been due to illness, and others due to the fragility of aging bones.  But still she clings to existence, such as it is.

She is the face of our steadily declining commitment to the least of us in our society.  She is also the future, if the right wing has their way.  She is no longer any use, so they have no qualms about tossing her onto the scrap heap.  When you and I are no longer of use to them, that is the future they envision for us too.  Of course they would rather we had the decency to just fucking die when we are no longer useful to them.

I know, you think I am exaggerating.  Then how do you explain that, when there are men and women like Barbara, just hanging on by a thread, and they want to cut every service that Barbara and people like her depend upon to survive, while at the same time giving tax breaks to those who want for nothing?

They would tell you (if they had the courage to speak their minds openly) that there is a natural order to things, and that you exist to serve your betters.  It is essentially the same line that you have heard in all class based societies.  If you stand up for yourself?  Then you are instigating class warfare.

It is much like the line used against black Americans during the civil rights movement.  They were expected to stand idly by while they were brutalized, lynched.  But should they stand up and resist, fight back, then they were instigating violence.

Now two years after I first wrote about her, Barbara is still barely surviving on whatever kind of pension she receives and what she gets begging on the streets.  She gave me a Christmas card again this year, thanking me for the help I give her.   I know she has others, like me, who help her out with a few dollars when they see her.  But still, that isn't enough, not even close.

Unless we change, she is not only the present, but the future.

Tweet

Primary the bastards

Social Security uses the CPI-W (Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers) to determine the cost of living increases.  While this is applicable to the population at large, it understates the fact that the older you are, the more you consume medical services.  As the fastest growing portion of that cost of living, this tends to understate the actual increase that retirees face in their cost of living.

This of course leads to the common problem among those social security recipients with the least supplemental income.  That is the question, do I buy food, medicine, or heat this month?  Which of these can I do without?

Now comes a proposal to use a different index for social security index,  the 'chained-cpi'.  This tends to understate the actual increase in costs even more.  It does not kill social security, it just makes it slowly wither away until it becomes so insignificant that nobody will object when it finally dies.

But the big lie is that this has anything at all to do with deficit reduction.  Social Security has not caused one penny of our current deficit.  And at the current rate of growth, it will be 20 years before it does become an issue.  And that 20 years could become 'the foreseeable future' if they would only eliminate the cap on wages subject to Social Security.

Now you would expect that the right would lie to you about why social security should be squeezed out of existence.  But when the same people who swore to defend it start talking this way, then there is only one alternative.  Primary them.

Every representative who calls themselves a Democrat that votes in favor of this lie should face a primary challenge from the left when they next come up for election.  And every Democratic voter should let their representative know that is the price they will pay for betrayal.

Every one of them campaigned on "Social Security is off the table".  Now the president has crumpled like a cheap suit, and many in the party are starting to waffle on their commitment.  Either they were lying to us all along, or they really are that stupid.  But if only I could get Obama into a poker game then I'd be set, and wouldn't need the Social Security.

Politicians of all stripes rely on your short memory.  Don't let this one slip by.  If they will screw you this way, there are no limits to what they will do to you.

Tweet

They will say: If only there were some way he could have gotten help

The events in Newton Connecticut are of course only the latest in a series of insane attacks by an unbalanced men with guns.  When someone speaks of gun control we are told not to politicize this tragedy, as though a preemptive attack on ways to minimize future mass murders was not politicizing it already.

And you hear another refrain, this one coming from both the left and the right.  If only he could have gotten treatment, if he could have been helped, perhaps it would never have come to this.  It is especially hypocritical when it comes from the right wing.

Because if there was a program, say, mental health screening as routinely as children are vaccinated, and treatment for those that needed it.  If we had all that in place. the right wing would be anxiously dismantling it as quickly as they could.

Mental health screening?  Social engineering they would call it.  A treatment program?  Well that would be an entitlement that needs to be done away with.  Why do I think that?  Because we used to have a lot of that in this country.

California had a state hospital system.  Schools had psychologists.  But in the right wing point of view, all that stuff is unnecessary coddling.

Of course they will have excuses, we can't afford it, it is not the job of the government, but of course it is exactly why we have a government.  Because collectively we can do things that we cannot do individually.

So, to the Karl Roves of the world, you own this one.  This is what you get when you combine unregulated gun access with no real mental health policy.  Not that he cares, but you should.

Tweet

When did obstucting the flow of traffic become the goal rather than a biproduct?

I had occasion to drive up Van Ness Avenue at around 10 in the morning on a work day. Mapquest said it was a 9 minute drive.  While I anticipated traffic, so I knew it was unlikely to be so short, I did not expect it to be quite so bad.

Accidents happen, MUNI buses break down, construction equipment blocks lanes.  All of those things are everyday occurrences.  I am not sure what happened on this day, I could see no reason for the closure, but a single block, in one direction, was closed off.

There was a parking control officer with his little car (what do they call those things anyway?) blocking the far side of the intersection.  So far, so good.  You have three lanes of traffic that needed to turn right into two lanes.  You have cross traffic.  You have a traffic light.  And what was the parking control officer doing?  Nothing!

He is there, why the hell isn't he directing traffic, trying to mitigate the mess he has created.  The only time he moved was when he went over to joke with the MUNI driver who had run a red light to block the intersection for a full three cycles of the traffic lights.

If this were a unique situation, I would say this was just one idiot.   But in my day to day commute in and out of the city I have seen this over and over.  Police and parking control officers on scene, standing around watching the situation get worse and worse, when the simple act of directing traffic would have made an enormous difference in the flow of traffic.  Could they have made traffic flow normally?  Probably not, but they could have eliminated the gridlock.

Years ago, I lived in Anchorage, Alaska.  Power outages, while not widespread, were a reasonably common occurrence for traffic lights.  And almost without fail, someone would pull their car over to the curb, get out a flashlight, and stand in the middle of the intersection directing traffic while the traffic light was out of commission.  I saw that again and again.

In San Francisco, however, it is an exception for even those paid to control traffic on the city streets to get out there and lend a hand.  Now if they are off attending to other duties, I can understand that the inconvenience of a few thousand drivers may not be the highest priority.  But if you are already there. and just standing around, how about showing a little pride?

I was going to shop there, but there was picket line

Today I had to run to the store for a few things.  Most of my shopping is done at Costco, but there are some things I want to buy in smaller quantities, and others that Costco just does not carry.  For example, Costco does not have shallots, and my wife had a grocery list that included 6 ounces of shallots for a recipe she intends to make.

I pulled up at Raley's, and there were pickets out.  I waved to them and moved on, taking my business elsewhere.  I had no idea what the issue they are striking over are, (I do now) but my thought was this.  All across this country, businesses are making ever increasing profits, paying their top management more and more, while at the same time trying to screw those at the bottom.  In the current climate, I will give the workers, not management, the benefit of the doubt.

So I did my shopping elsewhere and came home to do a little research.  These were the pertinent items that I was able to glean from my research.

• Management claims that they need to control costs to remain competitive.  This, though rather vague, does make sense.
• And of course 'controlling costs' means no premium pay for working Sundays, wage freezes, and the ever popular two-tiered wage rate, where current employees are paid one amount, while new hires get less.  And of course cuts in health care benefits.  Building in an incentive to get rid of current employees to replace them with cheaper ones.
• The union has asked for an audit so that they can find out if this is really about remaining competitive, or just lining the pockets of upper management (the company is privately held, not publicly traded, so much less is a matter of public record)
• Management has been unwilling to submit to an audit, which tells me that the numbers probably do not justify their demands

I have been a professional most of my adult life, and have never belonged to a union.  But that does not mean that I don't recognize what their existence have done for all of us.  And I see what is happening all over this country, the push to bring labor relations back the 19th century.

So for now, I am taking my business elsewhere.

Tweet

It is more than grammar, it is attitude

When I was growing up, when to use 'I' and when to use 'me' was drilled into me.  And whether you used 'I' or 'me', if you were talking about you and someone else, well, that someone else came first.

Somewhere around the Reagan years that began to change.  That was when the government started to become the enemy, and teachers, who are government employees began to lose respect.  And the one wage earner family began to disappear.  Working was no longer a choice for women, it became a necessity.  So after school the kids went to some kind of day care and then became latchkey kids.

Parents had less time to help with homework, or even make sure it was done. There was too much to do just to make sure food was prepared laundry was done, and all the other tasks associated with running a household were taken care of.  Many tried, but there are only so many hours in the day.

And another thing happened.  There was a shift in attitude, the every man for himself attitude.  A generation has grown up believing that they are entitled to have it all, not because they earned it, but because of how special they are.

So the next time you hear someone saying 'me and him', well that's where it came from. 

Tweet

The Horsey set, Mitt Romney and attitudes

For several years I had horses, and I hung out with horse people.  I had one, and then two horses, but my first was special to me.  She was like a cantankerous old lady.  She would try to take a bite out of your side when you tightened the girth on the saddle, but you could put a young and inexperienced rider on her back and she would take care of them.

There were all different sorts of riders in my circle.  There were people like me who just enjoyed the feelings of freedom and connection when riding a horse through the woods, trotting on a switchback trail.  There were the endurance riders, who would enter the Tevis Cup every year, a 100 mile race though the mountains.  The were those who were into 3 day events, dressage and jumping.  There were those into roping and rodeo type riding.  It was an eclectic group of people with one common interest, horses.

Now most of these people were middle or lower middle class.  They had to struggle to maintain their hobby, it is not cheap.  And most of these people were pretty conservative.  The group tended towards white and a little redneck.  Although I have not been in touch with them in years, it would not surprise me if most of them intend to vote for Mitt Romney.

There was a subset of these people who had a different attitude towards horses than most of us did.  To them a horse is sporting goods, a piece of equipment and nothing more. they were not in the majority, but they were present in the group.  And it is this attitude that this whole rambling post is about.

Mitt Romney does not hate you.  He does not even think of you as a 'you'.  To the Romneys, you and I are tools.  We are not people, we are votes, and we are units of labor and we are consumers of product.  We are no more important than the rusted hammer in an old toolbox in your garage.

He seeks power the way he seeks return on investment.  Does not matter how he gets it, does not matter what he does with it.  It is about having it, because he is entitled to it.

No matter how they try to disguise it, not matter what language they use, if you look beneath all that they stand for, this is the philosophy of the American right wing.  This is not the philosophy of the old line conservatives, Barry Goldwater is probably turning over in his grave at the though of what has become of his Grand Old Party.  But that is what you have today.

It is really very simple.  Are you a human being or are you a tool?

Tweet

Why Rep. Todd Akin scares the crap out of the Republican Party

Well, let's see, first there was thinly veiled (legitimate rape?) suggestion that most rapes aren't really rape.  If you have not been beaten to within an inch of your life, and have the cuts and bruises to prove it, then it wasn't really rape.  Hell, even then, you may just like it rough.

Then there was that whole thing about how you cannot really get pregnant from a rape.  After all, if was really, really a rape the the body would kind of shut itself down and you couldn't get pregnant.

So what you have here is that most women would lie about being raped in order to get an abortion, because you know women are lying sluts cannot really be trusted.  Add to it that wing nut conservative opinion carries much more weight than actual science.  And there you would have encapsulated the current state of Republican delusion thought.

But Todd Akin said it out loud.  It is not that they don't think the same way, look at the current Republican platform.  But you are supposed to use code that your moronic loyal base understands, but ambiguous enough that the cowardly mainstream press will not call you on it.


Tweet

A power play by AAA

Do you have AAA insurance?  I do, and for the most part I have loved them as an insurer.  If you have AAA insurance, and you are in an accident, you will find they are a strong advocate on your behalf.  So I was surprised when I read the proxy statement they mailed to me this week.

I am referring to the Northern California, Nevada, and Utah region, which is the area I live, as AAA is not an homogenous national organization. The proxy asked (as they all do) that I allow management to vote on my behalf.  Then I read what they were proposing.

The insurance arm of AAA is run by a board referred to as the Insurance Board.  The California Insurance Code requires that rules governing selection of that board be determined by the subscribers.  So management wants the members of that board to be voted in, by the members of the Insurance Board.  How's that for corporate governance in the interests of the stakeholders?

What you would have is a closed loop system, where management determines who management will be.  Do you see anything wrong with this picture?  Corporate America is filled with corporations whose primary loyalty is to entrenched management at the expense of the shareholders.  I liked to think that AAA was better than that, but I guess I need to rethink my position.

So, if you are insured by AAA and the Northern California, Nevada and Utah region, don't sign the proxy.  And if you can, go to the meeting (August 7th, 3055 Oak Road, Walnut Creek, CA at 11:00 AM) and vote against it.  And raise a little bit of Hell while you're at it.

Tweet

What does a company owe to shareholders?

Who remembers the novel Catch 22?  Remember when M&M Enterprises bombed the base?  It was OK because "everyone has a share".  This is the situation we find ourselves in today.


You work for Behemoth Industry Inc, a Fortune 500 company, and you are also a shareholder.  Every paycheck a small amount of money is deducted for the Employee Stock Purchase program.  You also have automatic dividend reinvestment, so every quarter you are watching the number of shares you own grow, helping to build your retirement nest egg.


One Monday morning you come to work and find there is a chain on the front gate, the plant is closed.  You are now unemployed.  A company press release announces that the quarterly dividend will increase one half cent because of their cost saving measures of shipping much of their manufacturing offshore.


You are one of thousands out of work, and the ripple effect hits your town, your county, your state.  Many of those who's lives have been damaged are stockholders also, as they own shares via their 401K's, in mutual funds, and direct investments in their IRA accounts.  All these people get one half cent per share extra per quarter, in exchange for being thrown into poverty.


I am not saying I have an answer here, only that we are a shareholder society.  Shouldn't we as shareholders be getting better treatment?  Is that one half cent per share all that they owe us for our investment?


Tweet

Bend over and crack a smile

Imagine you are driving along and you come to a traffic light.  It is green so you don't slow down.  As you cross the intersection you are struck from the side, your car rolls over several times, and you awaken in a hospital.

The next few months are spent in a painful recovery.  As you are unable to work, the bills pile up.  Your insurance company files suit against the insurance company of the other driver, and they settle on an amount that, while not making you whole, will at least pay off a lot of your medical bills.  Then you receive a letter from your insurer, telling you that they are going to keep all the money and you are left to fend for yourself.

That stinks, right?  OK, here is another story, and this one is true.

The banking industry discovers that if you write crappy loans, that are likely to default. you can sell them to some sucker if you package them with a bunch of other crappy loans as mortgage backed securities.  You might even make some additional profit by servicing the loan for the sucker you sold them to.

So your CEO gets a huge bonus, and because anyone and his brother can get a loan now, the price of real estate goes crazy.  Buying a home becomes more and more expensive.

Now you have a decent job, perhaps some savings for a down payment, and you go shopping for a house.  The prices are absurdly high, but that is just what they cost.  You take some comfort in the fact that with your purchase, you are building some equity, and you can recoup that when you sell.

Of course the house of cards that the banks have constructed eventually comes tumbling down, and then suddenly the house you have been making payments on every month for five, six, or seven years is worth dramatically less than you owe on it.

If you were to lose your job,  you cannot go somewhere else to look for a job because you cannot sell your house.  If you are ready to retire, you have no equity to pull out.  Need to move to a smaller, cheaper place now that the kids are grown?  Forget it.  Even if you walk away from that mortgage, your credit is trashed and you won't be able to buy another house for years.  Some landlords will not even rent to you.

Ever the federal government and the states.  They reach a settlement with the banks.  Now the amount of the settlement reached is a tiny percentage of the amount of equity that was wiped out as the result of the banks gaming the system.  But at least you may get some small amount of relief.

Until the state decides that they are going to keep your share of the money, the money that was supposed to provide you with some sort of relief.  That is what many states, including my own state of California intend to do.

So bend over and crack a smile.  You are about to get fucked in the ass...again.

A business model

To many people, knowing that Mitt Romney made a lot of money with Bain Capital is all they really need to know.  That means he must have done something that benefited the economy, the nation at large.  But that is only because they do not understand the business model of private equity firms.

So for the benefit of those people, I am going to publish a little history lesson, an object lesson that illustrates very clearly what role private equity plays in the world of business.

Mervyns was founded in 1949 by Mervin G Morris.  At it's peak it employed 30,000 people and had 257 stores.  It was acquired in 1978 by Dayton Hudson (now Target) and sold to the private equity firms Cerberus Capital Management, Sun Capital Partners, and Lubert-Adler in 2004.

At the time of the sale, the Mervyns stores were starting to show their age, Dayton-Hudson had been more interested in growing their Target brand than Mervyns.  But the business was still profitable.  It would have taken some work, but it was nowhere near a lost cause.

What happened?  The short version (the long version is a little more complicated but functionally the same), they sold off the real estate and the stores were compelled to lease it back at double the cost.  They sucked out $400 million in cash for themselves and left the company with $800 million in debt.  That was more than the company could survive.

The company was driven into bankruptcy, and 30,000 people lost their jobs.  But it was successful investment because the money borrowed to buy the company was debt to Mervyns, not to the private equity partners.  They got their money, everyone else got screwed.

This is the sort of capitalism that Mitt Romney represents.  It is the sort of capitalism that those who fund the tea party represent.  Yes, it really is legal.  But does this help or hurt anyone except the very few?  It is legal, but is it moral?  Is this really the sort of nation that we want to be?

If Occupy is to have a positive impact

When I was a teenager, I sat around a kitchen table with a group of people who were drafting a flyer.  There was going to be an anti-war rally at the local college campus, and we were discussing the text.  I submitted a draft text, and so did several others.  I learned a lesson that day.

The text that was overwhelmingly approved (not mine) was designed to appeal only to the most radical members of the movement.  Instead of reaching out to mothers who's children had been drafted and sent to Viet Nam, this was talking about solidarity with their Viet Cong brethren.  This was the left wing version of the Tea Party, and they were all patting themselves on the back for being so radical.

The anti-war and civil rights movements were successful when they evoked sympathy from the public at large.  When four anti-war protestors were killed by National Guard troops in Ohio, it served as a stark contrast between those protestors and the entrenched opposition.  When the network news showed the inhumanity of the police in response to black Americans who simply wanted to vote, that was also something that the American public at large could identify with.

Planning actions is the right thing to do.  They call attention to the movement, keep it in people's minds.  But if they do not want to be relegated to the lunatic fridge by the majority of Americans, then they need to adhere to three simple concepts.

• The purpose of an action is to focus the public's eye on both the Occupy movement, and the response of the establishment.  Getting the press there is important.
• Remember who your audience is.  You are on a stage.  You are trying to do three things.  Wake people up.  Highlight injustice.  Make them feel that you are standing up for them.
•  Avoid actions that are the political equivalent of public masturbation.  You are not there to please yourself, you are there to make a point that most of the 99 percent would understand and sympathize with.  Note I did not say agree with, there is almost nothing in this country that most people would agree with.  There were many people in America who did not want to sit next to a black man at a lunch counter, but sympathized with the desire of black Americans to be treated equally under the law, and to not have fire hoses set on them when they tried to protest.

Right now, I am not seeing that.  It makes me sad that a movement that could have been an important force for good in this country is marginalizing itself.

Went for his gun?

You are walking alone, being stalked by a stranger.   The stranger approaches you, and addresses you in a belligerent manner.  The stranger is not a police officer.  He are carrying a gun.  What do you believe is about to happen?  What do you do?

This is why George Zimmerman's excuse does not sound like any kind of an excuse at all to me.  Even if it is completely true that Trayvon Martin hit him and tried to take his gun, that would only mean that young Trayvon had decided that his best chance of getting out of there alive was to overpower his assailant.

The 'followed him back to his car' part of the story does not fit with the narrative that Martin's girlfriend provides.  She was receiving an ongoing account from Martin right up until the apparent struggle where he was killed.  She heard the initial exchange of words between them.

Lastly, how would Martin even know that Zimmerman had a gun to take away, unless he was brandishing it?

None of us know the whole story.  There may be much one to this than any of us know.  But why do I see these stories offered at face value, with none of the important questions being asked?

Prisoners of War

I had the opportunity to visit Andersonville, the site of the infamous prisoner of war camp run by the confederacy during the civil war.  Also there is the national Prisoner of War Museum.

The museum exhibits spoke in generalities, the history of how prisoners of war have been treated, and it also spoke personally, stories of individuals and their experience as prisoners of war.  And it talked about all the different flavors of prisoner.

The Japanese-Americans who were shipped to camps during the second world war, they were, in a way prisoners of war.  They had committed no crime, not taken up arms against this nation, and yet they were treated as hostile foreigners.  Their treatment was similar to civilians who were living in hostile or occupied countries when war broke out, interned for the duration.

But as I walked through the museum, reading the stories of men and women who had endured capture and sometimes torture, I could not help be be reminded of what a stain on our national soul is Guantanamo.

Someone in the Bush administration made up the term 'illegal combatants' to justify what would otherwise be illegal treatment of captives.  In 10+ years, how many of these men (and sometimes children) have been charged with any crime?  I still maintain that they must be treated as prisoners of war, or charged with some sort of crime.

We do not defeat terrorism by becoming terrorists.  Terrorism is a tactic used by the powerless against the powerful.  It is not an end unto itself.  As long as people feel oppressed, that their hopes and dreams are being ignored or actively suppressed, there will be terrorists.  You defeat that by attacking the root cause, and yet we continue to be the root cause instead.

As long as places like Guantanamo exist, there will continue to be more and more people who come to the conclusion that we are their enemy.  And how do you strike out an an enemy so large and powerful as the United States?  With acts of terrorism.

By our refusal to follow international convention, or even our own laws, we have become our own worst enemy.

Peanuts

That is the word that comes to mind whenever I think about the proposed settlement with the banksters. 

The housing bubble was essentially their creation.  They made money creating it, and when the bubble burst, we paid to bail them out.

So they were made whole again.

How much equity was lost by how many people?  Twenty-five billion dollars is a drop in the bucket.  It does not come close to repairing the damage done to the financial position of millions of Americans.  So the banks got their money back, and they got a lot of the properties back too, in foreclosures, many of them illegal.  They rest of us?  Chump change.

If the price of food goes up, you have to pay it.  If the price of gas goes up, you have to pay it.  How is it different if the price of a home goes up?  If you do not pay it by buying a home, you pay it in rent, either way, you pay it.  And in this case, the price of homes went up because they gamed the market.  And if you do not think lending money to buy a house to virtually anyone who wanted one drives up the price of homes, then I would like to talk to you about a great opportunity in investment property.

So the bankers got theirs.  Until the homeowners of America are made whole, this isn't over.  Not even close.

Being a Republican requires that you have a bad memory

As I have watched the rise of Newt from the ashes, I am reminded of the words of our favorite whipping boy.  You know the one, the fat guy.  Back when Bill Clinton was running for president, his mantra was 'character counts'.  That was of course before he had so publicly displayed his own lack of character.

So on one hand you have Mitt Romney, who finds nothing wrong with putting thousands of people out of work so a small group of people can make a quick buck.  We are not talking about taking a dying company and salvaging what's left.  We are talking about taking a profitable company, one that perhaps treats it workers too well, not squeezing every last drop of blood they can out of them   Or perhaps they are good citizens of their community, and don't take illegal shortcuts on disposing of toxic material.  You get the idea, there is a little more to be profit squeezed out of them so the Romney's of this world move in to dismantle it.  It is the quick buck verses the long view.

And on the other hand you have Newt Gingrich, a man who resigned in disgrace from his position as Speaker of the House of Representatives.  A serial adulterer and deadbeat dad who is so convinced of his own infallibility that he is still beating the faith and family values drum.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Names and Faces

I have a stepdaughter who has been active in the Occupy movement, and she talks to us about what goes on in the meetings they have discussing strategy and tactics.  My wife and I were talking about it the other day, and during that conversation my wife made what I think was an excellent observation.  A big difference between the Occupy movement and the earlier anti-war movements has been the lack of a specific target.

We knew who was responsible for committing American lives and treasure to the ill-conceived war in Iraq.  It was Bush and Cheney and their ilk.  The current financial mess we find ourselves in has also those who were responsible also, but who are they?

Put it this way.  A lot of people made a shit load of money driving our economy into the ground.  So far, none have gone to jail for it.  What they did that was legal, and what was illegal, I am not going to debate here.  In any case, what they did was wrong.  Whether or not any of them go to jail, they should be exposed.

This would be a great next step for the Occupy movement.  Identify who did what, how much they made, and put names, faces, amounts on the signs of the next series of demonstrations.  Call these people out in public, let their names and faces appear on television.

This will not be easy.  A lot of the decisions were probably made by people we have never heard of.  But I don't see the Attorney General doing this, so it is being left to the rest of us.  I am not even sure how I would start looking.  But it is what the movement needs right now.

Make no mistake, these are the architects of our decline.  It was done for personal gain without regard for the impact it would have on you and me or the nation at large.  It is time that you, and the rest of the nation, knows who they are.

Do as I say, not as I do

Well they Iowa caucuses have come and gone and we have learned two very important things about the Republican party.   One is that they do understand how a democracy is supposed to work, as the recent caucuses were a fine example of an open, fair, transparent electoral process.   The other is that while they understand that, they do not believe that is the way that America should be run.  The spate of laws being rammed through be Republican controlled states are the complete antithesis of the way they behave when only fellow Republican are present.

How were the Iowa caucuses run? 

• You could register on the same day. 
• No picture ID was required to participate.  They wanted all Republicans, even the elderly that do not drive and for whom getting a state sponsored ID would be a burden.
• Paper ballots were used so there is a verifiable record of each vote cast.
• The votes were counted, in public, at the polling place.
• The results were announced at each polling place, so that it would be possible to compare the individual precinct number with those published at the state level.

The is the way a democracy is supposed to work.

Contrast this with the laws they have been passing for the rest of us.

• Restricting mail-ins ballots
• Doing away with instant registration
• Requiring a picture ID to register or to vote
• And the ever popular electronic voting machine, which leaves no paper trail so there is no way to detect tampering.  (OK, both sides of the isle are guilty of this one, but so far only the right side has done any tampering)

You see, if it is just them, they want everyone to vote and they want to be sure that the voting is fair.  But if you mix in any opposition, then all of a sudden they are concerned with non-existent voter fraud.  It is plain that their goal is voter suppression, they just proved it.