I am all for that!

I'd simply nominate 'socialist'--it's tried and true, and historically, it's the only thing these ass clowns are afraid of.

especially because it is unlikely to be quickly co-opted.

And the way the Clinton crowd has been going around claiming the word 'progressive' for themselves

Several of us made it a point regularly to point that out at every opportunity, starting back then, and boy did that piss off those Stepford Acolytes at Kos. I often called it "predictable" and "purposeful" and they could call themselves progressive all they wanted but that it would be bullshit every time they did, and people were on to them. This was back before they allowed the free-for-alls on hide-rating, and is no doubt why such gang attacks on the written word were so encouraged after awhile. That's the only way they can suppress the sentiments facts laid bare against them.

According to Michael Bowker's Fatal Deception, Jimmy Carter was the only US president not tied in with the asbestos industry.

Possibly he wasn't drawn to people who knowingly, if typically slowly, killed people for profit and rigged studies designed to be used in court and in determining risk/attribution levels of the health effects and premature deaths of workers with the causes initially said to be worsened by and later almost exclusively transferred to the worker's life-styles, as their insurers panicked over the notion that the public would discover what appalling hazard they'd been placed at and that the resulting lawsuits would bankrupt them instantly, after all those years of taking money from such industries while expecting to never have to pay out more than a very tiny fraction of the legitimate claims.

This while they'd refused to insure the actual asbestos workers for a period... but I suppose that the optics weren't good for the asbestos industry they still insure today.

http://www.preventcancernow.ca/justice-denied-mistreatment-of-former-can...

... In fact, as far back as 1918, the insurance industry generally refused to give coverage to asbestos workers: “In the practice of American and Canadian life insurance companies, asbestos workers are generally declined on account of the assumed health-injurious conditions of the industry.” (Frederick L. Hoffman, chief actuary, Prudential Life Insurance Company, 1918)

But Johns-Manville was totally opposed to implementing better safety standards in its mines and factories in Newfoundland, Quebec, Ontario, the US or anywhere. It did not want to pay the additional financial costs. Its priority was company profits, not workers’ health. ...

When court discovery uncovered the Sumner Simpson Papers (also known as the Asbestos Pentagon Papers) and proof of a vast swath of people and industries having been fully aware of, and not only downplaying but concealing, even in medical and other publications, the deadliest aspects since at least the 1930s - and with heavier asbestos exposure having been known to rapidly kill throughout the recorded history of human exposures, going clear back to Roman slaves - it turned out that the EPA wasn't able to ban asbestos use and President Bush insisted that the asbestos industry (comprising a far wider range than those of mining, direct manufacturing, various appliances, vermiculite (formed under the same geologic conditions as tremolite asbestos and almost invariably contaminated by it,) generally now used for such things as gardening, for potted plants and insulation, not to mention automotive asbestos uses and many others, all creating exposures and environmental releases of ultimately nano-sized fibres which might easily break into ever-smaller, ever more easily inhaled fibres but which are noneless indestructible both in the body/cells and in the environment, tending to circulate in breathing zones where they are easily deeply inhaled and which begin perpetually causing scarring/potentially cancer-causing damage at the microscopic level the instant they contact living tissue) must continue poisoning not only workers but the unmentioned general public for the humanitarian reason that the very few victims/survivors receiving compensation from various asbestos companies/users would no longer be able to obtain this if the asbestos industry wasn't profitably continuing to increase the hazard ad number of victims the asbestos industry was being protected from.

So Bush told the (still relatively few) asbestos victims actually aware of their condition and able to meet the bizarrely limited asbestos-industry-designed criteria to potentially receive compensation if they fought hard enough and didn't die first to go sue the tobacco industry, since in most areas of America and at the time, virtually all workers had smoked.

The history of the asbestos industry and the complicity of multiple governments is sickening in all senses of the term - especially those of the latter seeking to avoid compensating war veterans and war workers (particularly those multitudes having worked in Navy shipyards) their 2nd-hand asbestos-work-exposed families and others (often expediently/gratuitously exposed to asbestos as well as the better known radon and atomic bomb-test radioactivity) for deadly illnesses having a long enough latency for those responsible to be able to escape much of the attribution through victim blame transference to the polluting industry life-style 'industry scientist' blame transference strategy, most predominately including Dr. Richard Doll, who remained, in example, on retainer to Monsanto for the rest of his life, after saving them much moola over that harmless Agent Orange thing.

If you can get hold of a copy of Fatal Deception, it's an interesting, if enraging, read, a well-documented one which makes clear how little our health and lives matters to those in government when polluting industry profiteering is at stake.

http://www.preventcancernow.ca/global-asbestos-trade-increased-by-more-t...

Global Asbestos Trade Increased by more than 20% in 2012

By Kathleen Ruff

Never vote for evil.

There's already a lot of it about.