The Biggest Spy Center on Earth: Let's Hope They Don't Use the Latest Snoop Technology!

While most Americans have been caught up in the "culture wars", or the hot-button political issues as we head into the Nov. 6 election, others  - mainly in deep politics- are keeping a wary eye on the ever increasing expansion of the national security state. Some (e.g. 'WIRED' magazine in its article 'The Black Box', April, p. 78)) have insinuated we are already witness to a mammoth 'Matrix' that may yet entrap us all. But others hold out hope this is merely excessive pessimism.

The 'WIRED" piece, probably to the consternation of the National Security Agency (NSA) and all other related spooks, "leaked" the news that a gigantic, $2b, 1 million square foot "data clearing center" will be built in the shadow of Utah's Wasatch Range to the east of the Oquirrh Mountains, right smack in the middle of Mormon 'nation'.  But make no mistake, this massive "Utah Data Center" will not be there to learn more about Joseph Smith or to ferret out Mormon polygamists.  Its mission rather is to keep an eye on the digital doings of  325 million Americans, as it parses and analyzes twitter messages, cell phone communications, contents of "private" emails, not to mention travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, online porno views or downloads, Kindle or Nook downloads and even parking lot receipts.

In other words, this massive "data center' won't be just that but rather a monumental snoop center to identify what every person in the US of A is doing electronically every waking second, at least as far as their actual activites - mostly digital- go. As WIRED also notes (p. 80):

"The mammoth Bluffdale Center will have another important and far more secret role that until now has gone unrevealed. It is also critical for breaking codes. And code-breaking is crucial because of the data that the center will handle: financial information, stock transactions, business deals, foreign military and diplomatic secrets, confidential personal communications, legal documents and anything else initially heavily encrypted."

According to one official quoted in the WIRED piece:

"Everyone's a target, everybody with communications is a target."

Got nude, drunk or other compromising photos of yourself on a Facebook page? The NSA Bluffdale center will be able to snatch all that content in a nanosecond, along with that from millions of others. Got compromising emails? They'll snatch all those too on a different data stream. Into "sexting" with your cell phone, or your kid is? Watch out or the instagrams will be forever archived in the Bluffdale center, and doubtless 'etched' into the memory engrams of dozens of spooks.

Get this too: Given the facility's scale storing a terabyte will be no biggie and the operators will be able to put that "into a flash drive" (op. cit. p. 82). No, people, we are talking about aspiring to the rarefied  "yottabytes" scale or 10²⁴  bytes of data stored. The facilitators insist they'll need such capacity given that internet traffic is estimated to quadruple by 2015  as measured from 2010. (After all, 2 billion of the planet's 6.9 billion were connected to the net in 2011.)

Obviously, with such enormous digital capacity needs - and hence the volume of processing demands- a comparable power station is needed. No surprise then that Rocky Mountain Power is building a special substation to handle the 65  MW (megawatt)  demand at a cost of $40 million a year. Your tax dollars at work.

But fear not, fellow netsters! The sources cited in the article claim not to be overly concerned with your cell conversations, emails, or tweets! Or your Facebook pages or blogs. (Well, maybe mine!) The spooks indicate they are far more interested in what they call  "the deep web" bearing sites beyond the reach of the public at large. These include (p. 83): "password protected data, U.S. and foreign government communications, and non-commercial file sharing between trusted peers."

My concern, however, is that the new center is tempted to use a newfangled technology evidently developed in the UK. Apparently, the device in question (about the size of a suitcase), can be used to actually spy on people inside buildings. It apparently works as a "passive radar system", able to "see through walls" and can even "determine location, speed and direction of a person behind a one foot thick brick wall". (Note: I imagine the device more radically miniaturized by Sept. 2013, when the Bluffdale center comes onstream. Coincidentally, more than 15,000 drones will also be plowing through the skies by then, thanks to our whore congress critters, and who knows? Many of the more compact 'spy' drones may be fitted with such devices which will grab data on us as they flit outside or above our homes or neighborhoods. Paranoid? Maybe, maybe not!)

Is this thing for real? Well one site reports that it surely is.

Let's just hope the new NSA facility sticks mostly to "deep net" traffic and doesn't go the route of also compiling "data" of what people are doing inside their own homes.

"But hey, if ya got nuthin' to hide ya got nuthin' to worry about!"

Maybe, but then some of us still believe the 4th amendment to the Bill of Rights means more than the paper it was written on!

Parsing the Weird Pseudo-Science of "Forcible Rape"

It's occurred to me that some people on hearing or seeing Todd Akins' recent "apology' (and his added comment that he "can't see what all the fuss is about" ) may not appreciate the pseudo-science behind the  GOP extremists' parsing of language to discriminate "forcible rape" from "non-forcible" rape. Again, in presenting this, I have to thank Rachel Maddow for providing the background in her in depth analysis last night. To be frank, I never ever realized such a hodge podge of outdated malarkey and balderdash even existed as regards human female sexuality.

I already knew, in terms of male sexuality, that many of the original Fathers in the Catholic Church had violently railed against masturbation as a form of "genocide" and "murder" based on the "homunculus" theory. This held that each sperm was really a homunculus (miniaturized man) so had to be protected - extended the same rights - as the "big man" in whom it lived. Of course, this horse pocky (or at least the justification for opposing jerking off based on it) ceased after the microscope was invented and sperm could be seen as tiny cells - none of which appeared like tiny humans!

The "forcible rape" definition applied to women appears to have emerged, based on Rachel Maddow's analysis, over time and been confabulated more by half-assed politicos looking for excuses to ban or outlaw abortion, than  having any genuine medical support. At root, the theory - or better idiotic speculation - is based on the nature of female hormonal secretions (which real ones, frankly, I doubt either James Leon Holmes or Clayton Williams would recognize if they had to).

Anyway, according to this misbegotten pseudo-scientific claptrap, a woman who is "forcibly raped" - in other words attested to by having bruises all about her body and face and likely ending up in an ER because of trying to  fight off the rapist(s), will secrete hormones that effectively kill or neutralize any sperm. (Some of these a-holes assert the secretions become highly "acidic" so eliminate the invading hostile sperm this way, preventing pregnancy.)

Hence, in such a "legitimate rape" there is little if any likelihood of pregnancy.

On the other hand, according to Holmes, Clayton and other yahoos,  there are "other secretions" which will be generated but have no effect on such hostile sperm, because the secretions were enabled as part of the female experiencing pleasure during the rape. Also, the other best evidence is that the raped females displayed no major head or body traumas indicating a ferocious fighting off or at least attempt. Hence, according to their "logic", it follows that in some manner, shape or form the women really "wanted it". After all, as one was quoted: "Lookit all them rape fantasies such women have!"

Hence, these women, were non-forcibly raped because deep down they really wanted it and enjoyed it, based on their lack of the proper secretions ....oh ...and an absence of physical signs of ferocious resistance, i.e. facial, head contusions and body lacerations.

THIS is part and parcel of the sort of distinction originally made by both Akins AND Paul Ryan in their House Bill H.R. 3, which (2011) language was later moderated, but for which the more rigid draconian demands of being "wanded" (by an ultrasound device) later surfaced in H.R. 3805.

The more you know.....or maybe, most of us don't want to....but I think it's important to grasp the underlying codswallop behind what these idiots believe, and why they're determined to get their anti-female choice laws passed. And hope most Americans, especially women, don't have a clue.

-----
Foootnote: The local rag in its editorial today('Rape is rape' says Obama - but Society must parse and qualify it', p. A15) claims: "The FBI parses one form of rape: Forcible rape, as defined in the FBI's Uniform Crime reporting (UCR) program, is 'the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will'".   The Rag (Gazette) then goes on to claim this is distinguished from "statutory rape" - in the same UCR - which they (the Gazette) also claim the FBI defines as "non-forcible sex" . The editorial also claims: "the vast majority of rapes that result in pregnancies are statutory rapes."  Leave it to the local yahoos to muddy the waters again! If indeed, the FBI UCR makes such a distinction they need to re-do their literature more carefully, because this plays directly into the hands, paws of the Akins of the world. If any blog readers wish to submit their opinions to the local rag, you can email them at: opinion@gazette.com

Be aware they prefer letters of "200 words or less". Have a go, as they refuse to publish anything of mine anymore. (I wonder why!)

More on "forcible rape": Is Joe Scarborough A Congenital Idiot?

Rachel Maddow (and her research staff)  did yeoman service in exposing vastly more of the hidden GOP extremism vis-a-vis women's bodies and issues in her show last night. For that she merits major kudos. Meanwhile, 'Morning' Joe Scarborough merits brickbats and rotten tomatoes for his ignorant rationalizations and excuse making in his appearance this morning, trying to take the heat off Todd Akin by re-directing it to others.



First, we have much to thank Rachel Maddow for, in exposing the vast underbelly of the reactionary GOP's war on women in her show last night, presenting a 15 min. history on the "legitimate -forcible rape" meme. Maddow took us through a retrospective of all the odious knuckle-draggers who've invoked the term, as well as one Arkansas bumpkin, James Leon Holmes, who wrote a letter to a newspaper asserting: "Concern for rape victims is a red herring since pregnancy in rape victims occurs with as much frequency as snowfall in Miami".

Then there was TX Rep. Clayton Williams who actually said "rape is like the weather, women to ought to sit back and enjoy it".

The point is that Toad Akins' comment (on "legitimate rape") in the context is not unusual or out of the ordinary. As Rachel pointed out, these extreme views have been part of the Repukes' shtick for over 3 decades. Indeed, the acceptance of the term "forcible rape" has been part of the GOP campaign platform for the last ten years, and remains part of that platform - which will be approved at the upcoming convention in Tampa. (Unless the stars fall from the sky, and 'Willard' Mitt sics his rats on the pro-life extremists and demands they remove that plank. But don't hold your breath! )

Rachel also noted that much of the GOP outrage at Akin was not driven by concern for women impregnated by rape, forcible or otherwise, since most of these hucksters would still demand the poor woman carry it to term, telling her to "make lemonade out of lemons". (See update at bottom of blog) Rather it was driven by Akin exposing the hidden GOP Agenda against women at the most inopportune time. So much so that most sensible Americans with more than air between the ears were recoiling from it, so the Goopsters had to do likewise. Even ol' Willard Mitt. (Ignoring for the moment that his sidekick, Paul Ryan, in the House bill H.R. 3 - signed with Akin, allowed for the definition of "forcible rape" and that no abortions were to be allowed either for ordinary rapes, or incest.)

But as Maddow pointed out, this was hyper-inconvenient to the Grand Old Party's rollout of its two reprobates.

Now fast forward to this morning, and Joe Scarborough, who has now convinced me he's a certifiable, congenital idiot.  As the discussion on 'Morning Joe' turned to more about Akin and the problems he's caused to the GOP, and thus the demands for him to recuse himself as a Reep candidate in the Missouri Senate election, Joe began blabbering about the unfairness of it all. He pointed to how Romney as well as Obama also castigated the outrageous speech of Akin, but asked: "When did we ever see Barack Obama express outrage over Bill Maher's reference to certain female conservatives using the c-word."

Hello, you fuckwit! Because the two examples are not the same! Maher is a satirist and comedian, who actually used to be the star of an old (90s)  ABC show called 'Politically Incorrect' (Get it?) but which has now been reincarnated on HBO as 'REAL TIME'.  He expresses candid and sometimes outrageous opinions and snide putdowns but lacks any power to pass legislation as Todd Akin would have in a GOP dominated Senate! Can you grasp it? Hence, it's comparing chalk and cheese.

We are rightly obliged to express outrage at anyone who aspires to high federal office, who will then have the power to craft legislation that can alter our destinies. But this is not the same as a comedian who occasionally used the "c-word' to describe certain female conservos, but for which anyone taking offense can simply change the clicker...or turn OFF the set. Once Akin gets in and if the GOP wins the Senate, however, there will be NO changing the clicker to go back in time! And no matter how many times you turn the set off, the laws Akin passes will be there to haunt you, and if a woman....land you in prison if you have an abortion!

Not satisfied with this display, Scarborough then expressed dismay at how Paul Ryan was being linked to Akin, despite the fact the pair co-authored H.R. 3 and later pushed for both H.R. 212 and H.R. 3805. He started to whine:

"Can anyone show ME, show me at all one single clip of Paul Ryan on the TV saying that there are forcible rapes, or legitimate rapes?"

Totally forgetting, or dismissing the fact that one need not have actual TV clips of Ryan mouthing the words. No, once he co-signed for the language in H.R. 3 with Akin, he was hoist on the same petard. Don't go looking for actual TV clips or interviews, fool!

Trying the patience of his panel even more, after being reminded of this fact (by Mika Brzezinski no less, usually dismissed by her critics as "stunningly superficial") Scarborough then demanded of Mika to know the exact date said bill was signed. At this point, Ms. Brzezinski glared at him, saying "You do not want to go there".

Indeed. But Morning Moron kept on hemming and hawing, while whining that this was no big deal... and what if he just asked for the date of a specific Yankees' game, was that not the same?

Never mind, Joe, it's beyond you. Best thing for you to do is stop trying to play your false equivalency games and other ruses while admitting your party is fucked....at least with sensible women!

---
Update: As of 3:10 p.m. E.D.T. it has been announced that the draft of the 2012 GOP Platform has been accepted, which disallows abortion for ALL rapes ("forcible" and "non-forcible"), as well as incest, outlawing abortion and making it a felony. The draft is expected to be approved at a full vote later today.

Samuelson at it again: Mixing Medicare Advantage with Ryan's Medicare Vouchers

Leave it to Neoliberal hack Robert Samuelson, in his yen to sell the Neoliberal prescription for our economic problems, to once more dip into his confusion and conflation barrel and muddy waters! This time about the vouchers (called "premium support") proposed by the Romney -Ryan ticket, and Medicare Advantage plans currently implemented by private insurance groups like Kaiser-Permanente.

In his latest piece ('Why Ryan Plan Might be Right', in The Sunday Denver Post. Aug. 17, p. 2K) Samuelson claims to cite a "just published study in the Journal of the American Medical Association suggesting that....well, Ryan might be right".

Really?

He goes on to write:

"The study finds a voucher -type system might noticeably reduce costs compared to traditional 'fee for service' Medicare. Three Harvard economists did the study including one prominent supporter of President Barack Obama's health overhaul".

Samuelson goes on to claim that the study "compared the costs of traditional Medicare with Medicare Advantage, a voucher-like program that now enrolls about 25% of beneficiaries."

This is the first hint of dishonesty in using the term "voucher-like" to describe Medicare Advantage plans when they bear no resemblance to the absolute voucher plans proposed by Ryan. For reference, let's understand that for seniors who choose to enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan, Medicare pays the private health plan a set amount every month for each member. Members may have to pay a monthly premium in addition to the Medicare Part B premium, but many companies offering Medicare Advantage plans make them available for a $0 monthly premium in addition to the Medicare Part B premium, which the member pays directly to Medicare.

Under traditional Medicare the coinsurance is pegged at 20%, but the actual amount out of pocket can be higher since specialists generally charge more for services.  This is not the case for the private Medicare Advantage plans for which the payout limits are often under 20% for special services, because the premiums from standard Medicare beneficiaries are used to subsidize higher specialist and other costs.

This is exactly why, in previous reports, the GAO has reported that the cost -burden of Medicare Advantage plans has added up to $12 BILLION a year to the cost for traditional Medicare and why the latter's headed toward insolvency. Of course! Because the Advantage plans are like parasites bleeding it down! Does Samuelson mention any of this? Of course not!

The point is the Advantage plans are required to offer a benefit “package” that is at least as good as Medicare's and cover everything Medicare covers, but  usually they offer much more!  Plans that require higher out-of-pocket costs than Medicare for some benefits, like skilled nursing facility care, can balance their benefits package by offering lower copayments for doctor visits, plus use some of the excess payments they receive from the government for each enrollee to offer supplemental benefits.

But this in NO way is similar to Ryan's voucher ("premium support") plan which would offer a single fixed voucher in a designated amount (e.g. $10,000) - from the government - to have to go out and actively snag a private plan (hoping it will accept the senior)  and the limits of the voucher to cover future costs of visits, care over the year. By contrast, once a senior chooses a private plan in the sphere of Medicare Advantage there are no 'ifs, ands, or buts' - he will be allocated a  private plan and can't be denied for pre-existing conditions or any other balderdash.  The private insurers also know it's a good deal for them since they're assured of regular monthly payments from the gov't which have the potential of increasing each year! No fixed, one time, voucher pays!

Another goodie for the Medicare Advantage senior: Advantage plans typically do not contain deductibles, thereby giving members "first-dollar" coverage. (Original Medicare has a potentially recurring (more than once per calendar year) deductible for Part A and an annual deductible for Part B.) Ryan's plan by contrast will likely see private health insurers attaching massive deductibles, on the order of $3,000 -$5,000 or more, for the simple reason that the insurers will be having to take chances (with no regularly promised gov't subsidies, only the single voucher payment) with a person in a putative high risk health pool! It doesn't take a genius to see that with such deductibles in play, and assuming the private insurer even accepts the senior, much of the voucher will be eaten up before the first real care is even delivered.

In many ways this is analogous to the sort of private insurance plans I was offered, at age 63 - before going onto Medicare. In nearly all cases, I'd  have had to cough up a mammoth deductible, $5,000, and then the premiums themselves were sky high - like $600- $700 a month. And that was BEFORE I'd learned I had prostate cancer(this year). Now, if I had to go cap in hand with a $10-15k Ryan-voucher to try to snag an insurance company to pay for my care, I'd likely be laughed out of their offices! They'd probably think I was some kind of comedian out to try his new shtick.

No wonder, given all the above, Samuelson can make the bald and devious claim that "Medicare Advantage has cost less for identical coverage. From 2006 to 2009 the gap averaged 11 percent between traditional Medicare and voucher plans similar to that under the proposal by Ryan, ..would serve as a price benchmark"

Of course, as I already showed above,  the "voucher" plan of Ryan is NOT the same as the Medicare Advantage private plan! Hence, Samuelson's use of the phrase "voucher plans" in the context is misleading, and egregious. As for that "11 percent gap between the traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage" that price gap comes to almost exactly $12 billion, or the total amount the Advantage plans bleed away from the traditional Medicare to support their higher level of "penthouse" caliber choices, perks each year. The same 11% difference bleeding the original Medicare into insolvency!

If anyone, any senior, believes the Ryan plan vouchers will deliver to him or her a  Medicare deal even remotely comparable to the existing Medicare Advantage plans, he or she needs to be escorted to an Alzheimers' ward.

"Legitimate Rape": A Shot over the “Bow” for Women Voters!

The pro-GOP pundits this morning were almost in tears. Whining, crying, weeping and bellyaching: “If Karl Rove was in charge of the campaign he’d never let this happen!”


What are the talking heads blubbering about? Why?

After GOP (Missouri) Toad Todd Akin’s comments on an interview went public. To quote, after being asked why he supported banning abortion:


“It seems to me from what I understand from doctors, if it’s a legitimate rape female bodies have ways to shut that down.”

Huh? Say what? Female bodies have magical and invisible weapons to shut down potential pregnancy....from forcible rapes?

By “legitimate rape”,   Akin meant by force, for example being gang -raped. Somehow the woman’s body will “know” what happened and be able to instantly neutralize or “purge” the millions of sperm violently injected into her against her will. Hence, no need for seeking abortion! Hell, it’s a natural medical “miracle” of the female body to be able to distinguish “friendly” sperm from “hostile” types!

Where did this numskull learn his human biology? In some creationist Sunday School camp? The same ones that teach that dinosaurs walked the Earth simultaneously with early humans – as fake scientists like Jason Lisle proclaim?

Naturally, liberal women’s groups are in an outrage but ALL women’s groups (including conservo) ought to be because Akin’s ignorant remarks also are embodied in House legislation proposed by Paul Ryan via H.R. 3805. Thereby the distinction is made between ”forcible rape” and “non-forcible rape” with the former being the only “legitimate” kind that might be allowed for abortion. Even then, the forcibly raped woman who’s been impregnated would have to submit to an ultrasound “wand” or “probe” to be inserted into her vagina as she's  lectured over the “preciousness” of the rapist’s growing seedling inside. This, by the way, would be a NATIONAL piece of legislation applying to all women everywhere.

This is in contrast to the same law that had been proposed (last year) by Virginia Governor Bob McDonald, who once joked that women who had to submit to insertion of ultrasound probes shouldn’t complain because “they’ve already had something in there.”

Can any woman of sound mind, sight and hearing really vote for any of these knuckle draggers? Can those who are even conservative but are moms think of doing so, given what the voting consequences may mean for their daughters?

Be mindful here that what reprobates like Akin and Paul Ryan are after is a nationwide equivalent to the odious "personhood" amendments now making the rounds. This election, further, is likely to be quite close given that up to 5 million minority, elderly and student voters may well be disenfranchised by Republican Voter ID law tactics - which are not meant to preserve electoral integrity but to suppress potential Obama voters.  This makes it more critical than ever that women who intend to vote in affected states ensure they have all the documents, including ID, they need and they see that the GOP ticket is one of disaster and regression.

The crying pundits like Joe Scarborough have reason to be concerned as this Akin comment emerges days before the Repuke Convention in Tampa. And don’t anyone believe this is going away anytime soon!

Paul Ryan's Actual "Bible" - From Ayn Rand!

"(Paul Ryan) lives in a libertarian Disneyland where freedom is never abused, where the government is an alien entity whose only function is to flummox the creative intelligence of the Übermensches like Ayn Rand's hero, Howard Roark"

- Joe Klein ('Paul Ryan's Grand Vision') in TIME, Aug. 27, p. 21


It's well known in most circles that pay any attention to political background that Paul Ryan -while claiming Catholicism as his religion (going so far as to back House bills 212, and 3805 to eliminate most contraception and render abortion draconian) is at the same time an acolyte of Ayn Rand. One may query from where he gets his budget proposals, but for anyone who's read any of Rand's "Objectivist" baloney  - whether in novels like 'Atlas Shrugged' or other works (i.e. 'The Virtue of Selfishness') , it's quite evident.

To me, it's clear nearly the entire basis for his budget is predicated on the principles Rand lays out in her "bible" : The Virtue of Selfishness. It's instructive, therefore, to go through this work and highlight some favorite Randian quotes, emphases and "principles". In doing this, one hopes people will better appreciate Ryan's own shtick and why he'd propose such a disreputable document as his 'Path to Prosperity' (see image).

Let's then look at some of Rand's bilge:

On whether one ought to save another's life (p. 45):

"The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one's own rational self-interest and one's own hierarchy of values: the time, the money, or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one's own happiness".

Contrast with the biblical view:   1 John 3:16

"This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers."

One wonders whether Ryan, as a Catholic, ever had real occasion to study his Bible in depth (assuming he owns one).

On Faith:

This might well interest Ryan because he professes to be a "man of faith" and insists his budget is really based on the principles of his Catholic Faith:

p. 38 (Rand):

"Faith is a malignancy that no system can tolerate with impunity, and the man who succumbs to it, will call on it in precisely those issues where he needs reason the most. "

Hmmmmm, interesting. Since it appears Ryan is not quite prepared to go the 'whole hog' as far as Rand's message. He is more than willing to neglect or conveniently overlook her objection to faith and also impose the sort of state violence Rand objected to, i.e. by having women submit to invasive ultrasound probes if they seek abortions (under H.R. 3805). So, do we call Ryan a hypocrite, or maybe a flip -flopper? How about a "hedger"?


On Government Financing in a Free Society:

Rand (p. 116):

"Since the imposition of taxes does represent an initiation of force...in a fully free society, taxation, or payment for government services, would be voluntary. Since the proper services of government - the police, the army, the law courts - are demonstrably needed by individual citizens, and affect the individual's interests directly, they should be willing to pay for such services as they pay for insurance.....Men would voluntarily pay for insurance protecting their contracts."

One method of such voluntary government financing would be a government lottery"

and (ibid.)

"A fully free society is one that has been constitutionallyreduced to only its most proper, basic functions"

Hey Ryan! Dig that! According to Ayn, your heroine, you shouldn't be increasing the federal tax base (by shifting spending priorities) to increase military funding! If y'all want the military to protect your sorry, scrawny butts or the corporate state, then BUY INSURANCE to support such an endeavor! But don't ask us in the 99% to pay for it with OUR taxes!! That's the use of FORCE!



On Comparing Medicare Beneficiaries to 'Hoodlums' and Gangsters (p. 82-83):

"Out of context goals are those which have to be public because the costs are not to be earned but expropriated. 'Medicare' is an example of such a project.

'Isn't it desirable the aged should have medical care in times of illness?'

"Considered out of context, the answer would be 'yes' it is desirable. Who would have reason to say no? But the fog hides such facts as the enslavement and therefore the destruction of medical science, the regimentation and disintegration of all medical practice and the sacrifice of professional integrity...

"There would be no controversy about some young hoodlum who declared: 'Isn't it desirable to have a yacht, a penthouse, and to drink champagne?' And stubbornly refused to consider that he robbed a bank and killed two guards to achieve that desirable goal."

"There is no moral difference between these two examples: the number of the beneficiaries does not change the nature of the action, it merely increases the number of victims. In fact, the private hoodlum has a slight edge of moral superiority: he has no power to devastate an entire nation and his victims are not legally disarmed."

So there you have it: According to Ayn Rand's "Bible",  Medicare beneficiaries are even WORSE than private hoodlums who kill victims, as in a bank robbery, to partake of desired champagne, penthouses and yachts!

Rand does offer a way out for those oldsters who need it, however, as on p. 120:

Any type of "non-sacrificial assistance", as in "a gratuitous gift"  is acceptable in a free society which does not depend on any 'redistribution of wealth'. In other words, CHARITY!  Thus, all of us Medicare "hoodlums" once tossed out and onto vouchers (if Ryan and Romney get in) can always go and beg at charities if we need extra money after the voucher has run out, say for treatment of prostate cancer or whatever. And since millions of us will be competing for help from the same charities, and only a limited number of us will receive enough....well, I guess we shall (most of us) have to just be ready to meet our "Maker".

Ah yes, Ryan's World! What's not to love?

The Coming Food Price Spikes Could Have Been Avoided

"I've got corn plants that are as brown as you can imagine. There's nothing there."

Weld County, CO rancher Dave Eckhardt. who estimates some 400 acres of his 1400 acres of corn have been lost, quoted in The Denver Post ('High and Dry', p. 1K, Aug. 12).

Are Americans ready for a major food price spike next year? While the devastating drought has been estimated to ramp up food costs by perhaps 2.5- 3.5% this year, the bellweather will be next year when prices for hundreds of products - but especially meat and dairy - can be expected to increase 10-15%. How will this affect family budgets, especially of those still trying to recover from the recession or stuck in underemployment?

We don't know but one thing is for certain: If Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan get elected this November, and they cut the food stamps portion of the federal budget as much as they say, more than 100 million Americans will suffer. There can be no doubt, and hence living on maybe an allotted $260 a month (after their cuts) will be like living on $230 a month this year. As it is families on food stamps barely make it to the end of the month, and many have to frequent charity food banks. They hate it, hate having to depend on "handouts" but they've no other choice.

There are a number of factors that the pundits will tell you triggered this prospect. One, of course, is the prolonged drought affecting some 2/3 of the nation and nearly all of the corn farm belt. Another is the nearly total corn monoculture, basically farmers in the farm belt now excluding nearly all other crops other than corn. Why? Because many get more for the effort, especially with increasing global demand - from the Chinese especially - who are using U.S. corn feed to plump up their hogs.

Hence, as the pundits will put it, "the reason is simple and basic economics, you have very strong global demand, and a supply disruption from the drought".

This take, according to Stephen Koontz, and argicultural economist at Colorado state University. (D. Post, ibid.)

He added:

"For the consumer it means nothing but higher prices."

The other tragedy of this is, as he and other experts cited point out, once the higher prices take hold, they'll be almost impossible to reverse. Added to this is what many climatologists believe is projected drier and warmer conditions affecting all the farm belt in the coming decades. This translates into one thing only: an age of scarcity - that will send food prices ever higher.

Did all this have to transpire? Not really!

First, 40% of the total corn crop is still being used for ethanol production, and the government is subsidizing corn -to- ethanol producers at the rate of nearly 45 cents per gallon of ethanol so generated (The Senate voted to repeal said subsidy but the White House vowed not to repeal subsidies fully). This is egregious, in the sense of using a food crop for fuel and also because ethanol (as recent studies have shown) doesn't really signficantly impact the increase in greenhouse gases. Certainly not as much as building more fuel efficient vehicles.  According to The Denver Post piece:

"Corn growers and ethanol producers are resisting calls by livestock interests to temporarily waive the federal mandate that requires ethanol to be blended with gasoline".

Well, of course they'd resist with such fat subsidies coming their way! (And don't believe for a second that Repugs in corn-farming states, e.g. IA, also won't fight to keep ethanol subsidies for political capital! Hence, the Senate vote was more PR window dressing than political substance) Why not! But by shifting two- fifiths of a key grain crop (also in high global demand) to a lousy fuel substitute they not only spit in the face of the needy citizens of this country who won't be able to afford much higher food costs, but they also risk a world wide famine, since other crop collapses (e.g. wheat in Russia) have also been affected.

Indeed, this is why wheat - like corn - is priced at near record highs. But still wheat is nowhere as pervasive as corn in food manufacturing and livestock feeding. For example, in the case of the latter, high fructose corn syrup is siphoned off as part of the production process and used in all manner of foods across the board, from sodas, to cereals, to ice creams, to cans of pork n' beans. And it doesn't take a genius to discern this component can be an unhealthy addition and which more than one health source has pointed to majorly contrubuting to obesity in this country.

Second, let us note the health of any corn crop depends on the water available to farmers. Even in drought some farmers can still survive -as here in Colo. - because they can use irrigation. Indeed, 70% of the state's corn crop is irrigated, according to the Post article. But many farmers have lost out because they've been outbid at water auctions by the frackers and shale oil drillers. (This state like a couple others, allows the highest bidder at regular water auctions to win out). 

Thus, again, while precious water (up to 3 million gallons per well) is diverted to drilling, crops go dry.

Can this bullshit continue? Of course not! But it's one more sign our nation has lost its vision and political compass, along with extending never-ending tax cuts when we desperately need revenue.

What two things do I want to see?

1) A halt to all ethanol subsidies by the government. Let the corn farmers who produce ethanol do it on their own merits and openly compete with real alternate energy sources (geothermal, wind, solar) or not at all.

2) A halt to all water auctions in the state of Colorado, and instead prioritizing use according to priorities of human need and survival. Since one cannot live unless one eats, then this means water for crops must trump water used for fracking, shale oil drilling.

Until we come to our senses as a nation, we shall continue our long decline into history's dumpster.