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?