It sure is nice to be able to write those words: Workers strike at Walmart!

Reports of striking Walmart workers have rolled out of four separate locations, from Florida to California, over the past couple of weeks.  Once, such bold collective initiative would have been unthinkable at the world’s largest retailer.

You may recall that, back in 2008, Walmart workers in the tire and lube department of a Walmart in Gatineau, Quebec, finally succeeded in unionizing in August only to see their department eliminated by Walmart two months later.  This has repeatedly been Walmart’s classic answer to organized labor.

In April 2005, a Walmart in Jonquiere, Quebec closed its doors in order to prevent the imposition of a union (UFCW) negotiated contract at the store.

As Wayne Hanley, former president of the UFCW tells it, the retail giant has, at every opportunity effectively sent this message to workers who might be tempted to organize:

‘If you join a union, they’re going to close your shop.’

Class action lawsuits by Walmart workers attempting to obtain relief for a laundry list of ill treatment, have become commonplace in the absence of union representation.

As recently as September of 2012 saw workers in Elwood, Ill. protesting retaliation against a group of workers who took their complaint about sub-minimal wages to court.

The lawsuit is the sixth filed by Elwood workers in three years. Three prior suits have resulted in settlement payments to workers. The latest claims that Roadlink Workforce Solutions–one of four subcontractors providing long-term “temporary” workers to Schneider Logistics, which operates the warehouse for Wal-Mart–frequently failed to pay overtime and minimum wage, in violation of federal, state and local laws.

Now it seems that some Walmart workers finally have had enough of big box bullying, and are taking organized steps to demand changes.

The strikes began with warehouse operators and workers protesting unsafe conditions, but quickly spread to stores all over California, under the umbrella of OUR Walmart, which is described as a “coalition of workers” rather than a recognized union.

Today, for the first time in Walmart’s fifty-year history, workers at multiple stores are out on strike. Minutes ago, dozens of workers at Southern California stores launched a one-day work stoppage in protest of alleged retaliation against their attempts to organize. In a few hours, they’ll join supporters for a mass rally outside a Pico Rivera, CA store. This is the latest – and most dramatic – of the recent escalations in the decades-long struggle between organized labor and the largest private employer in the world.

As St. Albans braces itself for location of the largest Walmart in Vermont, I take some comfort in the thought that, if and when this new store is built and occupied, it may well be in a new era of empowerment for Walmart workers.  

There are a fair number of folks here in Franklin County who, having been turned into activists by the threat of the proposed store, have become extremely well informed about Walmart’s labor practices and will gladly do whatever they can to promote the cause of organized labor at the new store.

It’s time to let Walmart know that we will be watching and waiting for the opportunity to push back at unfair labor practices, sound the alarm over anti-competitive behaviors and generally make the experiences that St. Albans has with Walmart known to the broader world of Walmart-watchers.

Walmart must make the St. Albans location the very model of good practices, bringing truth to every rosy promise that was uttered in support of the project; or be prepared for an epic public relations fail.

(cross-posted from Vermont Watch, here; photo omitted)

Below is commentary concerning homelessness within Vermont penned this morning and submitted as a letter to the editor to three local newspapers serving the Montpelier area (since slightly edited for the purposes of clarification and readability).

Growing colder on the streets

It was somewhat chilly out while walking downtown in Montpelier to do a little food shopping and then back home early this morning (Sunday, October 7th). It was colder still for those seen obviously living homeless on the streets.

These same as well as other individuals previously sighted during this year have been living outside for several months now, if not longer, at least in some cases.

How is the State of Vermont doing in terms of helping those living homeless?

From what I have observed over the last year or more, it would appear as if the state is not doing enough to assist those experiencing this type of dire need.

The state could be doing much more as well as a lot better than it currently appears to doing along these lines. Holding summits and meetings concerning homelessness and related matters is certainly not enough, nor are these what it takes to “get tough things done” in these instances either.

What people living homeless have the most need of is permanent, safe, decent, affordable housing (not merely homeless shelters, motel stays or other transitional, short term type of housing) as well as, if they have need of such, access to a variety of robust supports and services offered on a voluntary basis; and, on a case by case basis and if need be, not necessarily tied to accepting and maintaining housing.

This is indeed doable and it works.

Morgan W. Brown

Montpelier

So VTDigger has been closely following the political story of the week. and its coverage has sparked some fascinating responses. The political story of the week, by the way, ought to have been Randy Brock’s joke of an economic revival plan (the usual right-wing dogma, plus the mysterious Biz In A Box)…but, thanks to an epic brain-fart by Governor Shumlin, was instead the unanswered questions over the financing of his 2200-square-foot humble cottage.

Did he not realize how this would look? Like it or not, the topline on this story is “Governor gets $700,000 property with $35,000 of his own cash.” And as for his stout defense of his private life… well, he’s partly right. But when you occupy the top elective office in the state, and you’re the recipient of what appears to be an extremely favorable financial transaction thanks to some unknown out-of-staters, then your public life impinges on your private life, and some measure of explanation and disclosure is appropriate.

Instead, he got all huffy. And in the process of ineptly defending himself, he managed to channel his inner Mitt Romney:

“Are you going to criticize me now for forming an LLC?” Shumlin asked. “With the rest of Vermont and America?”

Yeah, Pete, “the rest of Vermont and America” is constantly forming LLC’s. Way to sound like an entitled, out-of-touch one-percenter. The inflated sense of entitlement continued through his Thursday presser, as he was obviously offended that reporters would dare question his sweetheart land deal. He delivered the topper with his ill-tempered walkout.

The following day, Shumlin campaign manager Alex MacLean delivered a reasonable explanation for the deal. If it had been given immediately, the controversy would have quickly been over.  Simple, basic politics. Something that Governor Shumlin is usually pretty good at.  

And now, the funny business over at VTDigger…  

Digger’s original story on Shumlin’s “cottage” sparked a lengthy comment thread. A lot of the comments were from Shumlin backers slamming VTDigger for daring to commit an act of journalism. State Rep. Warren Kitzmiller did his best to set up straw men and knock ’em down:

Is our Governor not allowed to buy land and build a home? Is it a requirement that he pay absolutely top dollar for the land?

No and no, but that’s not the point. The point is, if you make a deal like this, you ought to be prepared to answer a few simple questions about it. And Shumlin wasn’t. Next up to bat: Don Kreis of the Vermont Law School.

…where exactly is the news here? That the governor would like to travel back to Putney less and be closer to his office? That he has done exactly what every single other Vermonter would reserve the right to do without question? Nothing illegal, nothing improper, noting embarrassing, nothing even surprising.

Stee-rike three. This has nothing to do with the length of Shumlin’s commute. And sure there was nothing improper, but at first glance it sure looked funny. And Shumlin perpetuated it thanks to his hissy fit. Batter Up, Avram Patt of the Washington Electric Co-op:

An elected official looking to build a home has personal friends that he goes in on a real estate purchase with, in a legal arrangement that appears to work well for all of them. Turns out these friends have over the years contributed a few hundred dollars or a thousand dollars a pop to his campaign?

OK…..

So?

Another swing and a miss. The Digger story was written before anyone in the Governor’s camp explained his relationship to his “personal friends.” At the time, the Governor hadn’t told us a blessed thing. Which is precisely why this story became something more than a blip on the radar screen.

Then things get weird. Three commenters, in quick succession, write practically the same thing. First, Sarah Smith:

I used to have a lot of respect for Vt Digger. I have lost all of it. This reporter should be let go.

Then, Tom Holton.

I used to have a lot of respect for Vt digger.This is not the case anymore. This reporter should be let go. Sorry VT digger, you just lost a reader.

And the clincher, from Eric Robichaud. Read closely, please.

Thank you for the email requesting that we comment on this article in support of Governor Shumlin.

My comment is that I used to have a lot of respect for Vermont digger and I no longer do.

Thank you.

Oh great. So Eric gets an e-mail urging Shumlin supporters to slam VTDigger. And clearly Sarah Smith and Tom Holton received the same e-mail. What an excellent way to help the Governor.

A bit later, Eric apparently realized he’d screwed up, and posted another comment.

The reporter for Vermont Digger ought to be fired.

Thank you.

No, Eric, thank YOU for bungling your initial comment, thus revealing the organized effort to pressure VTDigger. Then, a few comments down the thread, Eric tries again. With equally unfortunate results.

Vermont Digger should be banned from all press conferences until they learn to respect Governor Shumlin.

I, amongst others, will no longer be buying your paper at local stores which will hurt the local economy. Truth be told, i never liked it anyway.

Think global, act local!

Oh yes, reporters who don’t show the proper deference should be banned. Tell me, Eric, what does Digger have to do to regain its “privilege” of attending a public event? Write “I Will Not Badger The Governor” 100 times on the blackboard?

And finally, Eric, thanks for revealing that you don’t have the least goddamn clue what VTDigger actually is. “Buying your paper at local stores,” indeed.

In closing, I speak to whoever sent the e-mail soliciting Digger slams: Cut it the f*ck out. Your actions are an affront against the exercise of journalism. And besides, do you really think Governor Shumlin needs this kind of help? He’s got this election in the bag, and he’ll have massive majorities in the Legislature. I shudder to think how you’d be acting if Shumlin actually faced a dangerous opponent.

Look, I’m gonna vote for the guy, and I want him to succeed. But when I see him screw up, I’m gonna write about it. And when I see his supporters playing games with VTDigger, I’m gonna write about that. It does him no favors to make excuses for his failures, and it certainly does him no good for him or his supporters to lash out at the news media.  

[Updated to add supporting data]

The last 24+ hours have seen a non-stop flurry of “OMG! Romney won the debate!” hand-wringing from the left. But Romney did NOT win the debate. He may have won the beauty contest portion, but that’s not the part that mattered.

Obama’s debate performance was exactly what was needed for the important goal of winning the election, even if it didn’t give those on the left the sense of satisfaction we might have felt if we’d been able to bash Mitt by proxy.

The right-wing’s machine had spent the entire week setting the stage for the “angry black man” attack strategy (thus the 8 year old video “surfaced” by Drudge of Obama speaking passionately to [gasp!] black people prior to the debate).

Obama completely killed their post-debate dog-whistle plans by being calm, professional, and honest. And in the process, he dramatically increased his approval rating AND his lead among independents. Romney gained only among republicans, who were going to vote for him, anyway.

Romney led 48 percent to 42 among independents in a Pew Research survey from April, which showed Obama ahead by 4 points nationally. Pew’s latest poll shows Obama overtaking Romney 44 percent to 42 among independents and opening up a 7-point lead nationally.

So in the only important measure – gaining among those who will swing the election – Obama won hands down, while also screwing up the pre-prepped ad campaigns from the opposing team. It was a two-fer.

Folks can stop wringing their hands, now.

I've spent my entire career providing legal representation to poor people, and anyone who works for poor people knows that limited or no access to dental care is one of the biggest health care problems facing the poor. As the AMA has noted:

 The first signs of some diseases such as osteoporosis or HIV infection can show up in the mouth, but poor oral health can also cause damage to the rest of the body. Over the past decade, published studies have linked tooth loss to dementia and associated it with poor pregnancy outcomes. Dental plaque can be a source of ventilator-associated pneumonia among intensive care patients. Tooth decay may increase the risk of heart disease. Diabetes can increase the risk of gum disease, and, conversely, leaving this problem untreated can make blood sugar control next to impossible.

 Poor dental health is also a severe occupational handicap. Twenty years ago the Vermont Supreme Court held that if a lawyer refuses advancement to employees who suffer from tooth loss it is liable for employment discrimination.

In recent weeks health care advocates have been pushing for the Green Mountain Care Board to include adult dental health care in the package of services required to be offered by the health insurance exchange, and they got thousands of Vermonters to submit comments favoring adult dental care.

This morning on VPR Bob Kinzel is reporting that the GMC Board has rejected adult dental care. According to Kinzel's reporting, board chair Anya Rader Wallach said the exchange was intended to “really mirror the current insurance marketplace and create as little disruption and additional cost as possible while offering some improvement in terms of how the marketplace is organized.“

 Health care advocates know that the current insurance marketplace has failed people who need health care. What Wallach calls disruption would be what anyone else would call a humane provision of basic health care.

Dental care is not a luxury, but a basic necessity. It is a gross failure on the part of the Green Mountain Care Board to refuse to require this coverage. 

Okay, I'm glad I didn't write this last night because I've gone through at least three sets of reactions to the debate. I'm still not prepared to say definitively who “won”, but I just have a series of thoughts.

My first thought, while I was watching, was a mix of recognizing that Obama was better on substance and Romney was better on style. Overall Romney had better control of the situation, and even the atmospherics were in his favor. For instance, I noticed a number of times that Obama was nodding his head while Romney was talking. Just a tic or pattern that many of us have while we're listening to somebody, but it still seemed almost like a submissive gesture of agreement.

Plus, there was one question where Romney seriously gave a better answer. It was the question about the role of the federal government. Don't bother going to look for the transcript: the substance doesn't matter. What matters was that Romney had a prepared statement that was arguably related to the question, pumped up some right-wing talking points, and tied it to the Constitution. Obama had nothing, and it was a softball for him. As in:

One thing I know about the role of the federal government is that it is the government of all the people, not just those who are fortunate enough to have material success. I know that it includes doing for people what they can't do for themselves, protecting the environment, investing in the future of our young people, and protecting consumers and home purchasers from unregulated and unscrupulous businesses who would exploit them. The federal government must encompass and advance the vision of America that is faithful to the vision of our Founders, and also keeps faith with the generations since who have built America into the strongest, freest nation on earth. [and so on].

He could have said something like that, but he kind of rambled and lost that question.

Still, the other part of my immediate reaction was that there was more substance in Obama's answers than in Romney's. This was not, though, inconsistent with the idea that Romney may have won.

From there, my second reaction while watching one of the fact-check stories right after the debate, was to think that people will feel pretty stupid when they wake up the morning after and realize how much of what Romney said just wasn't true.

 This was followed quickly by two counterreactions:

1. Who ever said the winner of a debate was determined by comparing the ratios of accurate and inaccurate factual claims of the two debaters? and

2. Okay, if Obama was right and all those claims by Romney were false, would it have been so bad to say so during the debate?

For instance, Obama probably said five times that Romney's plan calls for five trillion dollars in tax cuts, and every time he said it Romney said that just wasn't true. Wouldn't it have been better if somewhere along the way, instead of repeating “five trillion dollars”, Obama had said, “Look, the plan Romney has been touting for a year and a half calls for reinstating all of the Bush tax cuts, totally eliminating the estate tax, slashing the corporate income tax from 45% to 25% (or whatever the numbers are) and cutting individual tax rates across the board by 20%. That adds up to five trillion dollars and he won't even tell us one deduction he wants to get rid of to make up that five trillion dollar hole.”

 Of course, there could have been a strategy at work. The Obama people could have decided in advance that whenever Obama was responding to Romney's points he was talking about what Romney wanted to talk about, so they would stay away from that. Unfortunately, if that was there strategy I think it sucked.

 Finally, I got some good news tonight. I saw the diary from the DailyKos staff discussing the first poll after the debate, and apparently Obama actually did pretty well. Specifically, he didn't lose support overall and he gained a lot in favorability among independents.

 Finally. For an electoral debate, gaining support is the actual measure of success. You probably know this already, but when Kennedy debated Nixon the people who listened to it on the radio thought Nixon had won, but the people who watched it on television thought Kennedy won it, and Kennedy's win is the story we remember.

 We don't know what story we're going to remember yet. As a friend observed at lunch today, there are too many hands to know the final answer. On the other hand, I've said this before: I wish I saw some more fight in the guy.

Sesame Street is urban, multicultural, and very diverse. Where people are always teaching each other new things.

It’s not a gated community full of rich white people whose kids go to private prep schools. It’s a place where people don’t have stock options to cash in so they can finish school without having to work part time or take out huge loans. It’s not a place where daddy can help you buy a nice house in the college part of town. Or where you can own a horse and take a ‘loss’ on it that is worth more than many American’s homes.

People who live on Sesame Street run the spectrum of our country. Some of them are the ‘47%’, some own small businesses, some are immigrants learning the language of the land, some are second and third and fourth generation Americans making the best they can for their kids.  Some are grandparents. Same sex couples. Some are people who work in factories. Own the corner store. Take the subway to work.  Send their kids to public school. Try to save for college. Sign up for the volunteer fire department.. Volunteer to serve in the armed forces. Teach at the local high school. Work 2 jobs if needed to make it all work.

Sesame Street, it is the street the Romneys lock their car doors on when trying to get home to the burbs.

No wonder he wants to shut it down. The people that live on Sesame Street will never vote for him.  

My early morning dog-walk was accompanied by a line of Canada Geese obeying the irresistible command of nature to go south.

A little later, a single goose honked its solitary cadence as it hurried due north.  I had the brief fancy that she had forgotten something, like a pokey gosling or a pot on the stove; and she was rushing back to set things right; then would restart the journey alone.  

Whatever the reason, she’ll be southbound on the righteous path in no time; because that’s just the way it is;  a nice, reassuring reminder that there is some overarching predictability to the universe, come what may.

The debate last night was painful to watch.  Jim Lehrer deserves much of the blame for being unprepared, but who cares about that because the way analysts are parsing the outcome, it would seem the American voter cares more about style than substance.

“Mr. Obama looked like he didn’t want to be there.”

“Mr. Obama looked irritated.”

“Mr. Romney looked confident and glad to be there.”

Except for some pretty questionable “fact checking” sidebars, immediate “analysis” of the debate on all the channels that I checked focussed almost entirely on how comfortable the candidates looked!

Why wouldn’t a sitting president, with all the cares and secrets of his office, be simply overjoyed to be spending his twentieth wedding anniversary, live on-stage, trying to worm specifics out of his super-rich opponent?

Always an optimist, I was stunned to learn that debate analysts gave the win to Romney: Romney, who invented his way through the whole thing, defying math, contradicting his earlier position statements, and blithely avoiding questions of substance with the condescending assurance that he would “take care” of everyone.  

Then I remembered why…

The only purpose of the debates is to influence that tiny fragment of likely voters who remain undecided as of this date.

They are all that anyone cares about because the difference between Democratic and Republican platforms is as day compares to night.  Anyone with an ounce of gray matter has already chosen their candidate.    

Those still undecided voters are more likely to base their vote on “curb appeal” or what they had for breakfast than anything even remotely related to substance; kind of like you might choose a movie at the cineplex. No doubt, their eyes simply glaze over when the debating candidates come too close to specificity on points of policy.  

Two more debates (three more if you count the Biden/Ryan meet), and it will be all over except for the weeping.

If Obama pulls off the win, we’ll be euphoric for a few days and then settle into the glum job of prodding and coaxing him to deliver on some of the progressive agenda items that lagged during his first four years.   It’s unlikely that the complexion of Congress will be much improved, so gridlock is likely to continue.

If Romney wins (heaven forbid), that win will likely be tainted by some heavy charges of voter suppression and a new round of calls to revisit the validity of the electoral college model.  

Congress will still, most likely be in gridlock, as Democrats pivot to head-off what is likely to be a push by the extreme right to enforce what they will consider a mandate to dismantle the federal government.

The rich will get still richer; the poor will get still poorer.   And further economic melt-down will be accompanied by a newer, more militant generation of “Occupy” protests.

But those “low information” voters will not trouble themselves to understand why; and four years from now, as the bruised and battered former-American-middle-class limps to the polls once again to choose a president, the outcome will once more be left to the whim of a singularly unfocussed few who will continue to invest more attention in voting for “Dancing with the Stars” than they do on national elections.

Whimsy: the fatal flaw of this democracy.  That’s just the way it is.

When this reporter asked the President today why he was such a ‘wimp’ and ‘kiss-ass’ in the debate last night, he explained it to me thus:

“It was decided by The Boys In The Boardroom in 2008 that I would be a one-term President, like Jimmy Carter and old George Bush.

“After eight years of Bush/Cheney, Americans needed a break and something to feel good about.  You know, electing the first Black President, blah, blah.

“I have had the lead over Romney because most Americans realize he is the Rich Nazi Bastard appointed by said Boys to reign over the New And Final Feudal Age Of Capitalist Fascism.

“Why I didn’t say this last night is because I was ordered not to.  I have been ordered to throw the election.  You know, take a dive.

“So I guess, my fellow Americans, it is up to you now to face up to and think through the implications of my performance in this first debate.

“If The Boys In The Boardroom can, with the help of agents of our own government, murder President Kennedy, and get away with it because Americans don’t want to face the truth, what is to prevent them from rigging a goddamn election?

“Now, you can still vote for me, even elect me, but don’t expect from me any big things that might, let us say, endanger my life and the lives of my loved ones.  You know, the Lone Crazed BIRTHER, the Lone Crazed Racist, the Lone Crazed Muhammad Worshipper, blah, blah, blah.  Makes for good TV, right?  Especially when the Lone Crazed Gay Illegal Immigrant is killed on TV.  In Primetime.

“No, I will not put myself in that position.  Unless YOU, the American People, are willing to DO SOMETHING!

“If you think I acted like a pussy last night, take a good look in the mirror!  YOU have been acting like PUSSIES ever since the Warren Commission Report came out in ’64.  If you don’t like my blunt language, well, that’s part of the problem, not part of the solution.

“If YOU Americans are too lazy, stupid, in denial, or whatever, to get off your asses and put aside your gadgets and fight for what you think the United States of America should be and should stand for, DON’T expect elected leaders to Do It For You, because WE WON’T DISOBEY OUR “ORDERS” UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES WE MUST ALL FACE IN CONFRONTING AND OVERTHROWING THE CORPORATE REICH.  Trust me, this won’t be accomplished through Vigiling or Petitioning or Networking through the Social Media.  These BOYS are TOUGH.  And they CAN DO ANYTHING!  Because YOU LET THEM!

“I regret if what I have just said has caused most of you Americans to SHIT IN YOUR PANTS.  Maybe it is time for you now to figure out HOW TO WIPE YOUR OWN ASSES!

“Well…to steal a phrase from you, Mister Sweety, WE SHALL SEE.  

“Now, you’ll excuse me while I DUCK.”

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

(This is the most sympathy I’ve felt for Obama, EVER!)

The neckties must be constricting at VTGOP Central. There’s an increasing component of flail to Republicans’ campaign tactics. Can’t really blame them; they’re facing a truly epic defeat in November which will deliver the last nail in the coffin of the Douglas Era, and there is no clear path to regaining electoral relevance in the future.

Exhibit A: The Wendy Wilton campaign’s opposition research must have come up completely empty, considering that they”ve resorted to attacking Beth Pearce for — parents, please send your kids out of the room, or cover their eyes at least — RENTING A HOUSE instead of buying. The horror, the horror!

The implications of this dastardly “lifestyle choice” are twofold, sez the Wilton campaign. First, Pearce isn’t truly committed to Vermont. She might up and move! The flatlander blood obviously still courses through her veins. We cannot possibly elect an ALIEN to one of our most crucial offices!

And second, she’s not really committed to our system because she isn’t directly paying property taxes. Yeah yeah, property taxes are part of what every renter pays once a month. But she doesn’t actually write a check to her municipality. Which obviously means she is incapable of truly participating in Vermont’s governance.

What transparent, complete, absolute, classist bullshit. This is very close to Mitt Romney secret videotape territory. Do the Republicans really mean to insinuate that only property owners should take part in our political system? Should we return to the early days of our Republic, when only white male property owners were allowed to vote? Them’s was good times.

After the jump: What’s in that box? And, Mt. Lindley continues to smolder.

Exhibit B: Randy Brock’s unveiling of his laundry-list economic recovery “plan.” As with his health care “plan,” this one isn’t a “plan” at all. A plan requires some overall coherence, a clear path to a clear goal. This is another “throw everything free-market at the wall and hope something sticks” maneuver.

And, as Paul Heintz reported in his devastating takedown of the Brock announcement, the Republican had a lot of trouble when asked to go beyond sound-bite level on the implications of his “plan.” Which is very strange, if not downright disturbing, for a candidate who is presented to us as a solid, sober guy with lots of business and financial savvy.

Heintz’ entire column is well worth your time, but the highlight is Brock’s befuddled effort to explain the most original idea in his “plan”: the Business in a Box. A small sample of Epic Flail:

“What should be in these boxes? They could be like franchises. They could be businesses that need to be done in a particular area because they’re not being done,” he said. “They may be new ideas. They could be anything. It depends on our imagination and our ability to package them.”

It got worse from there. Kudos to Heintz for reporting the grubby details of Brock’s announcement. Unlike, say, the Freeploid and VTDigger, which omitted all the embarrassing “I don’t really know what I’m talking about” stuff. Which was a failure of journalism and a disservice to the public. I mean, if a politician can’t articulate his own ideas, shouldn’t we maybe know that?

Exhibit C: Jack Lindley’s obsessive pursuit of the Bill Sorrell collusion complaint. Angry Jack doesn’t want to go through the established procedure of asking a State’s Attorney to investigate. Oh no, he wants, nay demands. a special prosecutor. His argument is that state’s attorneys don’t have the resources to do the kind of thorough, painstaking, “fruit at the bottom of the bowl” investigation that Lindley’s accusations obviously warrant. I do hope Angry Jack is getting his blood pressure checked regularly, for his own sake.

There’s a whole lotta flop-sweat cascading from Republican brows these days. And it’s only going to get worse; they still have five more weeks of staring into the abyss of imminent defeat, and it’s well known that gazing into darkness causes you to lose all perspective and become completely intolerant to light.