Air Conditioning - The Bane of the Planet

                                                                       

Then there is the personal dimension for grudging change to AC. Following a string of 90 degree days - unusual for our area, but not for a global warming world - our evaporative cooler finally conked out. The cost of repair, we learned, would be nearly as much as just buying a new one. But hey! The service person alerted us, if we got central air conditioning instead it would mean more even cooling throughout the house plus less expensive upkeep. Also, how can you turn down a 15 year warranty?

And so we bit - and I must add - we haven't regretted it given we now can breathe without the constant allergy attacks from pollens blowing in, not to mention the smoky air from fires in the Pacific Northwest, and the occasional skunk odors (After the varmints let loose on a dog or cat outside and the noxious fumes found their way inside - through the swamp cooler vents.)

However, two days after installation we learned we'd become "eco-criminals" by way of our purchase, since this was one of the worst things for planet Earth. According to the Mother Jones article, 'Chilling Effect' (Sept. -Oct., p. 86), AC is damned near wrecking what's left of the planet. (But then, you have to understand, as temperatures now hit all time highs - in locations from Delhi to Budapest, normal humans are eager for some kind of relief. And the heat won't abate as we move inexorably closer to the runaway greenhouse effect.)

But the nation with the most air conditioning units isn't China or India but the United States, as 'Muricans have moved to hothouse locales like Miami and Phoenix - as well as other Sun Belt communities - making it a literal necessity.  Here in the mountain West, in the years before about 2000, few had AC and the 90 degree days each summer usually didn't exceed 7 or 8. Now they exceed 20 and often more, as the climate warms. (The temp. forecast in Denver for today's Ravens-Broncos game is 91 F). Any idiot who's lived here for decades can detect the change and it's not merely anecdotal or "subjective".  Nor is it a result of "normal climate cycles".

So AC is now a built in convenience in hotels and homes. And all told Americans spend an average of $11 billion on cooling each year, releasing some 100 million tons (0.1 gT) of CO2 in the process - or the equivalent from 19 million automobiles.

The pollution effect is one thing, but as the article points out, as more and more heat sufferers install AC there will be more strain on electrical grids (important here in the U.S. where the power grids are antiquated and in need of repair - updating) as well as more CO2 is pumped out.

One 2009 study - whose results I would not dispute- predicts that by 2100 demand for heating will decrease 34 percent and demand for cooling will have grown by 72 percent. But given what we already know about global warming has been underestimated, I'd warrant the figures will actually be 0 percent and 100 percent, respectively,  by that date.

Of course, as the MJ article points out, more efficient equipment might mitigate some of the effects, but alas the overall, absolute increase in AC units worldwide will more than wipe that benefit out.

There are, however, things those of us with ac can do to mitigate our own impacts, including ensuring our homes are well insulated.(Seepage accounts for 30 percent of the system's energy consumption so that insulation can also reduce electrical bills.) Setting the thermostat at 78 F instead of 72 F also confers benefits, lowering the CO2 dump as well as saving on average $100 a month.

The article notes that swamp coolers (which we used to have ) are more efficient in dry climates than air conditioners - which is true. BUT, left unsaid is how the incessant moisture wreaks havoc in the home, increasing dampness in carpets and wood, as well as encouraging mold.  The swamp cooler we had also had to be open (e.g. exposing a veritable hole in one wall) whereupon centipedes, wasps and other unsavory critters could gain entry. And, of course, on account of the design of the cooler - being open to the outside- one still had to deal with smoky air, as well as skunks. The ac solves all those problems, though yeah, there is a sacrifice in efficiency.

In the meantime, we will do what we can to be good stewards and dedicated enviros-turning off the AC completely as soon as the temperatures outside get a bit cooler!

Why Rand Paul Has Zero Chance Of Any Presidential Nomination (His Groupies Ought to Quit Now)

GOP presidential candidate Rand Paul cut short an interview with The Guardian’s Paul Lewis 2 weeks ago Friday, leaving the reporter in the dark (literally) after being pressed for specifics on campaign strategy and criminal justice. After offering a terse response to Lewis on how he plans to reach both the Republican base and more centrist voters, Paul abruptly shut down the conversation and walked away from the reporter, who continued to push for “a specific answer.”

It doesn't matter as Rand Paul has no chance in Hell of ever getting nominated. Let's leave out for the moment the loopy Libertarian creed to which he subscribes which maintains the world belongs to the 'creators' (like Ayn Rand's fictional Howard Roark) and everyone else became "second -handers" or parasites. We even leave out for now that Alissa Rosenbaum (Ayn's original name) grew up a total deprived neurotic after the Bolsheviks took over and dispatched her family to more humble surroundings in St. Petersburg, Russia.

Little Alissa grew up vexed to the core and vowed that one day she'd get what she had coming to her and so came to America - where assorted family and friends, relatives handed her virtually everything on a platter. (She never thanked any of them either, according to the new book, The Age of Selfishness). Later, she found a niche in a studio as a screen writer and managed to get a bloated, half-baked novel ("The Fountainhead") published - which later became a crappy movie - and managed to find a hubby. (She also found a lover in Nathaniel Branden - a doofus who actually agreed to have his name changed to fit 'RAND' into it!)  She insisted to her hubby that rational people should be allowed to make such choices, and so arranged for trysts with Branden thrice weekly. (This was until the dupe eventually wised up and dumped her - after which - in a fit, she scuttled the "Nathaniel Branden Institute" - where lecturers expatiated on the benefits of "Objectivism".)

After Rand's  first novel she went on to write other folderol as well as developing the hokey philosophy called Objectivism. Basically it maintained that selfishness is the true virtue and we all ought to practice it. At least those who aspire to be "individualists"  as opposed to parasites sucking on the marrow of winners! Every man for himself, devil take the hindmost and all that. This garbage later became the fodder for Neoliberalism as well as the fuel that nearly brought down the economy in 2008- given one of her former acolytes (Alan Greenspan) was full tilt approving of an unregulated derivatives market. And so it goes.

Back to the other "Rand", Rand Paul. First, the guy has zero chance of winning anything national or major given all the reasons I cited in this prior post:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/07/why-libertarians-will-never-win.html

But more disconcerting for him, as an expose of his sordid campaign in Mother Jones notes, is that it's already been tarred and permanently. It is guaranteed to implode sometime in the near future and all bets will be off for anyone dumb enough to back this guy. (Even forgetting for the moment he already walked back one of his key principles, of not extending military might into the Middle East or anywhere else - which had at least rendered him partly preferable - say to Ted Cruz or Chris Christie)

The "time bomb" associated with the Paul campaign would shock the living hell out of the centrists and Millennials to whom Paul is trying to appeal. In fact, it involves a bunch that goes by the title, The National Right to Work Committee which has a mantra - according to one ex -staffer (MJ, May-June, 2015, p. 52):

"We're Right to Work. We hate everybody"

Ha! Charming bunch of douchebags!   Oh, another thing they won't tell you is that the group's origin is firmly on the far right. (Got that, centrists?) Their longest serving President was, in fact, Reed Larson, affiliated with the John Birch Society. For those short on political history the John Birch Society was almost the biggest bunch of nuts around in the 1960s.

But anyway, this sordid background isn't Rand Paul's biggest problem. No, that attaches to Paul's campaign picking up a former NRTWC operative named Kent Sorenson- also a former Iowa state Senator.  After "secretly negotiating for months to lure Sorenson from the Bachmann campaign" back in 2011 the Randians finally got their wish. But the problem is it looks now more like  serious liability.

Reason?

"The Sorenson deal exploded into public view in 2013 thanks to a pair of whistleblowers from the Ron Paul and Bachmann campaigns and the episode now hangs over Rand Paul and his inner circle like a cloud". (Ibid.)

This could be because "Sorenson pleaded guilty last year to two criminal charges for which he faces up to 25 years in prison."  As MJ goes on to note (ibid.)

"It has pulled back the curtain on the roguish band of advisors, political organizers and fundraisers whose sometimes sketchy tactics have fueled Rand Paul's political ascent. This crew - call it Paul World- reflects the damn the rules, libertarian world view of the candidate himself".


As I noted in a previous blog post:

The libertarians espouse a philosophy which cannot possibly work in the real world - because that world implicitly recognizes and declares government the primary agent of force, i.e. to enforce laws. Look around for a "force-less" government, i.e. which retains adherence and respect for its laws with no use of force.

So it would be quite natural for a Libbie like Rand (or his campaign) to disregard all laws, rules and regulations and act like they're in the Wild West. This is given, as Charles Murray has written ('What it means to be a Libertarian (p. 6)::

"...the first libertarian principle of governance: In a free society individuals may not initiate the use of force against any other individual or group."

As I went on to note:

If governments aren't enabled to enforce their laws , what’s the point? It’s all an exercise in mental masturbation. People can do whatever the hell they want!  Set up sex store emporiums or pot shops next to schools, or sell cocaine  and semi-automatic weapons in open stalls on the sidewalks of major cities!  Freedom thereby becomes perverted into a veritable "free for ALL". In other words, unless governance declares limits to actions - and someone (coercively) enforces governance, a functional society becomes  impossible.


Could we really afford having a nut like Rand Paul as President? Think about it! Do you really want what's left of our society to become totally dysfunctional - say like Paul's current campaign - running along with a hidden "bomb" (Sorenson) soon to go off?  More, do you want a guy who tries to appeal to centrism and reason but secretly harbors extremist right nuts whose motto is We hate everybody?

Young people who believe Rand Paul is the answer to all their political concerns and yearnings need to take note, and perhaps now take the time to consider backing another "horse". One not crippled by toxic baggage!

GMO Labeling to be on Colorado Ballot in November - About Time!

The news in the Denver Post two days ago couldn’t have been better for those who want to see their food products labeled. After all, the full labeling of what an American is about to consume is among the most basic rights. We ought to know, as one Vermont critic of the GMO corporations said, what we are putting into our bodies.

The argument of the GMO producers and the FDA (and some misguided scientists, including Neil deGrasse Tyson)  has been that all this flack over labels  is totally ridiculous since GMO- based foods are “basically the same” as others we eat. Fine, then we will allow them to appear on the supermarkets’ shelves – no problemo. Just make sure you label them!

Now, we know the signatures on the petitions have been verified for Colorado Proposition 105 and the formal announcement was made on Wednesday by the Colorado secretary of state – that the proposition will appear on the November ballot.  There were 86, 105 valid signatures needed, and 171, 370 were submitted with a 73 percent validity rate so 124, 800 were valid.

Thanks to Colorado Right to Know, it has been mission accomplished.

The Proposition is asking voters whether foods modified or treated with genetically modified materials should be labeled. The reference label will be:

 

“Produced with Genetic Engineering”  - Beginning om July 1, 2016.

 

Foods from animals that are not genetically modified but have been fed or injected with genetically modified food or drugs are exempt, as are unpackaged foods for immediate consumption, alcoholic beverages, food for animals and medically prescribed foods.

 

Of course, as in the case of the local fracking initiatives the response of those who stand to lose profits if the proposition passes has been hysterical.  Sara Froelich, quoted in the Denver Post, blathered:

“Proposition 105 will absolutely raise food prices to the tune of hundreds of dollars  per year for a family of four”

Which is the typical scare message that’s predictably emanated from these tools since they stopped a similar California labeling initiative several years ago.

 

The fact is that food prices will barely be affected.

As a Mother Jones piece observed, e.g.

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2013/10/would-gmo-labeling-jack-food-prices

 

"Opponents of labeling, pointing to a 2012 study prepared during the California fight by Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants, say that the new rules would cost consumers $350 to $400 annually per household. The Northbridge paper, though, was funded by the industry-dominated campaign to stop Prop 37, as the California initiative was known. Campaign records show that Northridge received a total of $97,371 in five payments during 2012.”

 

So this is clearly where Ms. Froelich got her scarifying info from.  Meanwhile, a rival 2012 study, prepared by Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University School of Law, found that "food prices [are] likely to remain unchanged for consumers." That study was commissioned by the Alliance for Natural Health, a group that advocates for "the right of natural-health practitioners to practice and the right of consumers to choose the healthcare options they prefer."

Which is right? According to the Mother Jones article:

Over at Grist, Michael Lipsky, a distinguished senior fellow at the progressive think tank Demos, argues that labeling wouldn't likely cost consumers much at all. The cost of changing labels would be trivial, he writes—food manufacturers "do it all the time." Ever seen the words "new and improved" on some boxed delicacy? 

The takeaway is that Colorado voters, like Vermont’s earlier, can’t allow industry scare tactics to rob them of the chance for labeling and individual decisions  - as opposed to letting the FDA and the likes of Monsanto to make them for us!

 

Protecting Your Data And Files From the NSA Snoops

Now that the word is out that the NSA plans to try to shut down media outlets, and that likely includes certain blogs as well, people may wish to know how to muster some kind of defense against the indiscriminate mass spying – repeatedly justified as “necessary for our security” – but which any old spooker hack would use to try and frighten the weak-willed. But as Mother Jones (Nov.-Dec., p. 27) and other sources have reported, even Patriot Act co-author Jim Sensenbrenner was “Stunned at what the NSA had become.” The referenced article (‘Troll on the Hill’) is about how Republican Rep.Justin Amash tried his best (along with liberal Dem Rep John Conyers) to rein in these mutants – and he almost succeeded by the final vote, until the Obamanites brought heavy pressure to bear on any waverers.

Anyway, the latest news from the UK Guardian today is that the head of the embattled National Security Agency, General Keith Alexander, is accusing journalists of "selling" his agency's documents” and is calling for an end to the steady stream of public disclosures of secrets "snatched" by former contractor Edward Snowden. In other words, this guy wants the media outlets shut down! Anyone recall how the Gestapo started doing the same shit in Germany before the Enabling Act? Probably not! Alexander reportedly complained on the Defense Department's "Armed With Science" blog.

”I think it's wrong that that newspaper reporters have all these documents, the 50,000 – whatever they have and are selling them and giving them out as if these – you know it just doesn't make sense.

We ought to come up with a way of stopping it. I don't know how to do that. That's more of the courts and the policy-makers but, from my perspective, it's wrong to allow this to go on,"

Jeebus, hasn’t this character been taught the First Amendment? Evidently no more than he was taught the 4th. This stuff is now in the public domain, sir, so basically you are trying to close the barn door after the cows escaped when it was left open – by your own contractors and their massive snooping apparatus!

As Mr. Greenwald added:

“There are 25,000 employees of the NSA (and many tens of thousands more who work for private contracts assigned to the agency). Maybe one of them can tell The General about this thing called "the first amendment".


Well, Glen, clearly they think a punk congress will put through another Enabling Act followed by a newer version of the old Reich laws – where the Nazis tossed German newspaper editors into camps for not keeping quiet. But you know, “he who forgets the past is doomed to repeat it”.

Anyway, let’s move on to how to protect your files from the snoopers, as delivered in an inset box within the same MJ article:

1) Use open source software. Sources with software publicly available are more secure than anything developed by Microsoft, Apple or Google. Open source platforms include Firefox for your browser and Thunderbird for your email,

2) Hide your location. This can be done by installing the easily downloadable Tor Browser, which is pre-configured to mask your IP address and therefore your location.

3) Encrypt: Yeah, we’ve known since last month that NSA’s spooks have defeated most commercially available encryption- but scrambling your online activities can still foil most hackers and snoops with too much time on their hands. The easily installable browser HTTPS everywhere encrypts your web activity. For email, use Pretty Good Privacy.

4) Mind the air gap: If you’re serious about being a modern day ‘Deep Throat’ (like the one that revealed the Watergate stuff to Woodward and Bernstein) build a computer that’s never been used so hasn’t been fucked up using backdoors by snoops. If you want to deliver a secure file to another, encrypt it first and physically deliver via USB stick.

5) Divorce Your Freakin’ Phone: In July, a federal appeals court ruled that the government can obtain your location from carriers without a warrant. Again, another 4th amendment violation. You can minimize what you share by disabling tracking functions on your apps, oh, and turning off your phone when not in use.

6) Use a pass phrase: A string of random common words, i.e. ‘jose lama tequila mountain’ is way easier to recall and way harder to crack than a single word. Because pass phrases are significantly longer than passwords they carry more bits of entropy so are more difficult to crack.

To see the entire presentation, ‘How to Lock Down Your Data’, go to the Mother Jones site or see p. 31 of the magazine.

Exploding Assorted Gun Myths

As the Newtown parents prepare to confront the most intransigent politicos in D.C., and the gun nut supporters and NRA zombies scream like hysterical harpies about Obama “playing politics” – it is well to bring up some of the numerous gun associated myths that too many Americans accept. These were assembled in the March/April issue of Mother Jones magazine. (Some readers may recall it was Mother Jones and David Corn who broke the hidden Romney 47% video last year, which arguably tilted the election to Obama.)


Here are the major gun myths in the MJ section-article ‘Out Front’:

Myth #1: ‘They’re coming for your guns!”

Fact: America’s roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds outgunned 79 to 1.

Total weapons owned by law enforcement and the military: 4 million

(Side note: Ok, I will concede, and MJ doesn’t note this, that the feds do have military fighter jets, tanks, nukes and now – from last nights news’ reports- a powerful laser capable of blowing jet planes out of the sky. So even with a 79:1 ratio it might be a tad unwise for a United Citizens Militia to go up against Uncle Sam!)


Myth #2:”Guns don’t kill people- people kill people”


Fact: The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates.


(Secondary fact, as noted by Rachel Maddow: Bullets kill people! Take all the bullets away and all the guns are useless, and so are the bad guys who might use them on good guys!)


Myth #3: “An armed society is a polite society”

Fact: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely to make obscene gestures at other motorists and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively. Among Texans (who admittedly may not constitute the optimum unbiased sample) those with concealed handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.

Myth #4: “More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.”


Fact: The total number of mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: ZERO

The chance that a shooting in an Emergency Room involves a weapon taken from a guard: 1 in 5.


Myth  # 5: “Keeping a gun at home makes you safer”.

Fact: For every time a gun is used in self-defense in a home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts and 4 accidents involving guns in or around the home. Making the last more likely: 43% of homes with both guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.  To see a recent case to do with what I'm referencing here, go to: http://www.salon.com/2013/04/09/new_jersey_4_year_old_accidentally_shoots_6_year_old_in_head_ap/


Myth # 6: “Carrying a firearm for self-defense makes you safer.”

Fact: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people packing heat for self-defense were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians packing heat trying to stop a crime. A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun and his odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.


Myth # 7: “Guns make women safer.”

Fact: Six times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers. A woman’s chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if she has access to a gun.


Myth  # 8: “Vicious, violent video games deserve more blame than guns.”


Fact: Japan spends $10 more per capita on violent video games than the U.S. Its total gun homicides in 2008? ELEVEN.

In the U.S. the same year: 11,030.

The difference? 88 firearms per 100 people in the U.S. but in Japan only 0.6.


Myth # 9: “More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.”


Fact: More guns are being sold, but they’re owned by a shrinking portion of the population. In 1973, 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes, today 43% do.


Myth #10: “We don’t need more gun laws, just enforcing the ones we already have!”

Fact: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally, including via ‘straw purchases’ (e.g. having someone with a clean record buy a weapon for a felon.) Nearly 40% of all gun sales involve private sellers and don’t require background checks. One investigation found that 62% of online sellers were willing to sell to buyers who couldn’t pass a legal background check.


Will any of these myths being shattered make any difference? Will they help the parents of the Newtown victims make their case? This is doubtful so long as reason and common sense take a back seat to ideology and irrationality fueled by tons of NRA lobby money. The sad fact is, as with other areas, one party is almost totally contaminated by gun lobby money so they will not likely change – not even to pass a law for universal background checks which 90% of Americans support.


It could be, just saying, the other reason it’s so hard to make headway on this issue is because the nation itself is schizoid in its approach to violence.  It is disputable then that a nation can, via its military, commit mass murder overseas – say by launching pre-emptive wars (killing 600,000 Iraqis) or  ‘accidentally’ killing 11 Afghan villagers, including kids in a coordinated rocket attack, then expect magically that this arena is divorced or separate from the one at home where gun violence reigns. Pull out of Afghanistan, stop all plans for war making – including possibly Iran- THEN go to battle for changes in the gun laws at home! In other words, stop believing that the violence executed militarily (by a perceived empire)  overseas has nothing to do with the nascent vibe of violence at home!

It was, indeed, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. himself who first recognized the intimate connection between violent military overseas adventures  - in this case Vietnam (1968) - and violence at home.  In speech after speech in early 1968 he came down hard on U.S. policy in 'Nam, and LBJ, incensed, ordered his phones tapped. LBJ regarded King as an ingrate, especially after getting Civil Rights legislation and the Voting Rights Act passed. But King saw that none of that mattered if a nation promoted a culture of violence by its very aggressive wanton war mongering. Expecting minimal violence at home, while waging extraordinary violence in a foreign land (irrespective of the justification), was therefore as irrational as it was indefensible.

See also: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jeff-cohen/48983/the-elephant-in-the-room-militarism

Of Morons, Ingrates, Fools and Apparatchiks

Jeebus, you would think that in the aftermath of Romney's finally blurting out the unadulterated truth, people would finally figure out what side their bread is buttered on. But it seems FAUX News still has most of the hoi polloi brainwashed against their own interests. To be sure of that, I had to tune in to Shepherd Smith's program on FAUX to see what Reich Wing TV was spouting. (I have to do this occasionally to see the sort of poisoned rot being fed the delusionary minions who still support Mitt despite his admissions.)

Leading the hour were a host of re-broadcasts, including of an Obama 1998 speech about "redistribution" in which he said:

"The trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some [wealth] redistribution -- because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.”

Which is not significantly different from the view of JFK while he was president. This is why JFK vigorously sought 'top-down' redistribution via his proposed tax policies. These included (Donald Gibson , 'Battling Wall Street - The Kennedy Presidency', Sheridan Square Press, 1994, pp. 22-23):

- the elimination of all tax breaks set up in the form of foreign investment operations or companies

- the repeal of all tax advantages by corporations operating in low tax countries, such as Switzerland

- the repeal of the 100% charitable contribution write-off by the wealthy

- Withholding tax on the investments, dividends and capital of the wealthy

- to ensure revenues could not be lost by too many shelters or at the 'end point'.

- Tax on investment dividends so that all those earning in excess of $180 k would pay a much higher rate.

-Devices that would prevent 'high bracket taxpayers' from concealing income from 'personal holding companies'.

- An anti-speculation provision that would ensure property or investments were kept at least one year - else no benefit from existing capital gains rates would apply

-The elimination of special 'gift' transfers as well as repeal of the $50 dividend exclusion and the 4% dividend credit.

Resoundingly reinforcing the general perception of JFK as a 'statist' (pro dirigisme) were the withering criticisms from the financial press at the time. One of these, which appeared in Fortune accused him of an attempt to "manipulate the tax level against the business cycle". ('Activism in the White House', June, 1961, p. 117) Of course, ALL these reactionaries and corporo-fascists would have protested levelling the playing field so the wealthy couldn't amass wealth to use against the rest of us. This is all Obama was echoing in his 1998 remark, but the Neocon-Repuke Nazis have their panties in a twist over it.

Now, let's get REAL for once! ALL TAX POLICY IS ABOUT REDISTRIBUTION!

It just depends on WHO is doing the re-distribution and where it's going to! The Repukes want redistribution for sure but DONE THEIR WAY. They want it to inflate the military -industrial complex to indirectly provide pork barrel spending on military bullshit - like here in COS to the tune of $1b, to support their special interests! The also want redistribution to the richest, and they've done that via tax cuts, especially over the Bush years, moving 1 dollar of every 6 upward to the rich from the bottom 95%, as Barbara Ehrenreich has observed (in Bait and Switch).

Thus, Mitt's recent comment, to wit:

"I think a society based on a government-centered nation where government plays a larger and larger role, redistributes money, that's the wrong course for America."

IS Horse manure. Hello, fuckwit! That's exactly what YOUR SIDE does every time it approves another multi-billion dollar pork barrel military project --- just to provide jobs for your minions in Repukesville districts. (E.g. to build 2,380 F-35 bombers at $ 0.3 billon each)You don't think we notice! That's also what you plan to do with your proposed TAX CUTS! But the brainless wonders who follow you come hell or high water can't figure it out. Can't figure out that those $4 trillion in tax cuts will have to come out of THEIR sorry asses! In other words, stealing from the less well off to help pay for caviar -stoked cruises, rose wine wraps and $100,000 golf trips to St. Kitts for the RICH! Oh, and $150,000 gold-embossed toilets with special butt -cleaners that can be activated via remote clicker! (So they needn't foul their dainty hands)

RE-DISTRIBUTION!!!

And then people wonder why the Gini coefficient, which measures inequality, has now fallen to the point that we're next to Mexico and the Philippines. In terms of practical applications, a Gini index of zero would denote perfect equality. In terms of western industrial nations, most developed European nations and Canada tend to have Gini indices between 24 and 36, the United States' and Mexico's Gini indices are both above 40, indicating that the United States and Mexico have greater inequality..In the whole panoply of criteria, and the full spectrum of research, the Gini coefficient (the prime indicator of income inequality) is the key factor.

The biggest howler of all from the Right's Romney zombies is that they believe some "Left Nazi" secretly recorded the Mittster's comments on camera phone, and now they are talking about "prosecution". This is because it was done at a "private gathering". Well, I hate to disappoint these ingrate bratskies, but I've since learned that it was one of THEIR OWN who recorded it then posted it on You Tube! Then, Jimmy Carter's grandson , James Carter IV, located it on the web, then managed to track down the source to obtain the whole tape, and made that available to David Corn of Mother Jones (Denver Post, today, p. 22A, 'Carter Grandson Arranged Romney Video's Release').

According to the account:

"Carter had watched countless hours of footage of Republican Mitt Romney and made it a habit to search You tube every few days for keywords like 'Romney' and 'Republicans'."

The piece goes on to note that on one day in August, one clip "jumped out"- according to CArter IV, it was "all blurred at the beginning and mysterious"

Something suggested there might be more than a brief clip, and sure enough with some diligence he found it! Carter then tracked down the source of the video and "convinced him that Carter could be trusted", i.e. in not divulging his name. Remember, this was one of the hotshots at the confab. One of the rich guys. Maybe he had guilty pangs, and felt like he had to take a shower after hearing and seeing the atrocity of which Romney spoke so cynically.

His way of getting his conscience clear? Giving the whole video to young Carter IV. After a "string of internet conversations" it then made its way to David Corn, an editor with Mother Jones magazine.

And the rest, as they say, is history.

And the Repuke babies keep on whining, because they can't handle the truth that their man is a thug and a RAT!