Tuesday, December 23, 2014

If Willis Hart Wasn't Such An A-Hole

He'd realize how disgusting a post such as the following actually is...

Willis Hart: "If President Obama Had a Son..." ...with a white chick, he'd look like Officer Ramos. (12/22/2014 AT 7:56pm).

Willis is referring to the recently murdered NY police officer (12/20/2014). What's disgusting is that he's using this murder to express his hatred for president Obama. The "if he had a son" is a call back to Obama telling the press that, if he had a son, he might have looked a lot like another murdered individual - Trayvon Martin.

Obama saying that if he had a son he'd look like Trayvon Martin made Willis mad. I have no idea why, but I'm guessing it has something to do with Willis' strong racial biases. And the fact that Willis sided with the shitbag murderer, George Zimmerman.

So he posts a completely absurd commentary... absurd because President Obama is a happily married man who is not cheating on Michelle with a White woman. Also absurd because Ramos is Hispanic! How the hell does a White woman giving birth to the son of an African American result in a Hispanic son?!

Like I said... utter absurdity. And completely disgusting. That the Hartster would take the murder of a police officer and use it to make a point about how much he hates Obama?! And remind us that he sided with the murderer George Zimmerman?!

Shame on you, Willis!

OST #34

Friday, December 19, 2014

The Willis Hart Movie: Deliver Unto the Plutocrats The Wealth Of Our Nation

Apparently Willis Hart is writing and directing a new movie designed to benefit from the hubbub surrounding the James Franco/Seth Rogen film "The Interview"? Somehow I doubt this is actually going to happen...

Willis Hart: "On SONY Pulling the Plug on that COMEDY in Which Several Bunglers Try to Assassinate Kim Jong Un"... You can relax, folks, my movie, a remake of Deliverance, in which the Ned Beatty character is Kim Jung Un (AKA, an actor who looks like him) and the hillbilly who butt-f*cks him is played by a Truman Capote lookalike, will NOT be nixed. (12/19/2014 AT 9:19am).

Yeah, I don't know how a movie that was never green-lit to begin with (by a major studio) can be nixed. Perhaps this is a small indie film that Willis is financing himself? In any case I would have guessed that the Willis Hart movie would star the Koch brothers (actor look-alikes) and Willis (as himself), and that the one to get butt-f*cked would be Willis. Although the Hartster would submit willingly and gleefully.

Maybe the Kochs are ponying up the dough for Willis' movie - to reward him for being such a loyal stooge?

OST #33

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Consistent bush Apologist Despicable Defense of Torture

I refer to Willis Hart, of course... an individual who has been VERY consistent in his defense of former preznit George W bush in regards to war criminality.

Willis Hart: "On What to Do When You Accuse George W. Bush of Being a War Criminal and Then Ultimately Discover that Your Progressive Icon, FDR, Perpetrated Some of the Most Despicable War Crimes in All of Human History (the Targeting and Murder of Hundreds of Thousands of Civilians and in a Manner that Had No Strategic Value Whatsoever)"... Hm, let's see, a sane and responsible person would probably either modify the charges against Bush or have the power of his or her convictions and hold Mr. Roosevelt to the same standards... Of course I'm obviously not referring to a sane individual here (12/16/2014 AT 7:23pm).

So the argument Willis is making is that since FDR was never charged with war crimes, presidents can do whatever they damn well please. Treaties, international law, US law, and societal norms concerning right and wrong be damned.

Of course Willis jumping to the defense of GWb when it comes to the war crimes he approved is nothing new. He's done it many many times previously. Usually by bringing up FDR and WWII.

By the way, it is impossible to charge someone with a crime after they die, which FDR did... quite awhile ago. GWb is still alive and still chargeable for his war crimes, which CLEARLY Willis does not want to see happen.

And, for the record, I have not discovered that my progressive icon, FDR, perpetrated some of the most despicable war crimes in all of human history (the targeting and murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians and in a manner that had no strategic value whatsoever).

Regarding "strategic value", John Keegan, author of an October 2005 Telegraph article titled "Necessary or Not, Dresden Remains a Topic of Anguish", writes...

In the circumstances of early 1945 there were pressing reasons for persisting in the bombing. The Germans were still hitting London with pilotless weapons, the prospect of victory, apparently so close at hand in the autumn of 1944, had sharply receded after Hitler's great December offensive in the Ardennes, the Battle of the Bulge, which had caused more American casualties than any other battle in the west. Moreover, it was strongly believed - and not only by the bomber barons - that bombing severely damaged and might soon break German morale (source).

Whether this course of action was a war crime is not an opinion I am offering, as, admittedly I am not extremely well read when it comes to this subject. It may very well have been. I do know, however, that we were at war. A war Germany started.

Unlike the war we were engaged in when GWb authorized torture. Not only did GWb start that war, he started it by lying to the American people about WMD he KNEW Iraq did not have (SWTD #154). And, as we all know, torture does not work. It only gets those tortured to admit to whatever the torturer wants them to admit to (to get the torturer to stop).

This argument, IMO, has more to do with Willis hating FDR... which he does. A LOT. Willis, in opposition to what a sane and responsible person would do, allows his hatred of Progressives to excuse and defend a president who approved torture.

Frankly I find his defense of torture especially repugnant given recent BS from the arrogant Willis regarding him perhaps being "TOO anti-war" and that possibly being his "ultimate downfall".

Yeah... RIGHT... if by "anti-war" the Hartster means too anti-progressive and too much having his head up his ass when it comes to his belief in lies peddled by Libertarian "luminaries".

OST #32

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Willis Hart LOL-able Narcissism & Oligarchy Worship

Another dig at a blogger the small "L" Libertarian Willis Hart does not like.

Willis Hart: If Obama Ever Came Out For a Flat-Tax and a Doubling of the Pentagon Budget... [blogger I don't like and view as an extreme partisan] would still support him, Hannity would still oppose him, and I'd still be banging my head against the wall... Rise above it, people. (10/14/2014 AT 4:37pm).

Note that I removed the name of the blogger Willis believes he has "risen above" (follow the link if you want to know who Willis refers to). This isn't a commentary about that blogger (who is not me in this instance). It's a commentary about the narcissism of Willis. He's beating his head against the wall because (in his mind) he "gets it", while many others do not.

This despite the fact that Libertarianism is a fringe ideology that most people recognize for the hogwash it is. It's purpose, in economic terms, is to funnel money upwards. Case in point, another commentary from Willis in which he praises the extreme tax cutting that directly lead to the Great Depression.

Willis Hart: More Unimpeachable Evidence that Lower Top Marginal Tax Rates Actually INCREASE the Amount of Taxes that are Paid By these Individuals... As you can plainly see from these charts... the amount of revenue that was collected at the 24% rate was significantly greater than the amount which was secured at the 73% rate (a 122% increase; $321 million versus $714 million) AND the share of the income tax burden for those making over $100,000 a year also soared, from 29.9% to 61.3%; a 105% increase! Yes, it took a year or two for the tax cuts to kick in but once in fact they did, tax revenues skyrocketed... (10/8/2014 AT 2:56pm).

Here the foolish Hartster presents a bubble as AWESOME and desirable. This particular bubble he points to (The Roaring Twenties) being the one the preceded the Great Depression. Seeing stupidity like this is enough to cause halfway intelligent people to bang their heads against the wall, you dope Willis!

And the Flat Tax is a Conservative/Libertarian idea. If adopted by Obama he might as well switch parties. The blogger who he thinks would still support him - would not. I know I would not. And a DOUBLING of the military budget? That's something not even the most neo-connish Republican would propose. It's outside the realm of possibility and reality.

Although Willis does add that this might be "a bit hyperbolic... But not a lot, I fear".

No, it is a LOT hyperbolic. And delusional as well... the thinking that Willis has risen above it but "people" have not. I assume he's talking about a majority of people (non-Libertarians) he thinks he's better than. Better than because he buys into economic policies that enrich the already wealthy while wreaking the economy.


OST #31

Monday, August 18, 2014

A Song For Willis & I Address Some Lies From Willis' Blog Of Low Content

Actually, a song for Occupy Wall Street, which Willis hates, called "Save The Rich". But sung from the point of view of someone who believes our economy should be run for the benefit of the wealthy, as Willis does.

Written and performed by the comedy duo Garfunkel and Oates, which "is an American comedy-folk duo from Los Angeles, California, consisting of actress-songwriters Kate Micucci (Oates) and Riki Lindhome (Garfunkel). The band name is derived from "two famous rock-and-roll second bananas", Art Garfunkel and John Oates" (quoted from Wikipedia).

Kate Micucci's first major television exposure was her role as Stephanie Gooch in Scrubs, and later as Shelley in Raising Hope and Raj's girlfriend Lucy in The Big Bang Theory (also quoted from Wikipedia). Although I know her from Scrubs, I've never watched either of those other programs.

Note: No explanation as to WHO Willis Hart is, as he never explains who "wd" is when he writes his many posts slamming this hated individual. He knows his regular readers will know who "wd" is and eagerly join in bashing him (that is, me).

Video 1: Early Version (2:08).

Video 2: Official, more polished version (2:48).

Video 3: As performed with "Weird Al" Yankovic (3:02).

In regards to the "commentary" mentioned in my post - this is only one of many in which Willis bashes the hated "wd". The title of this "commentary"? "wd's Name if the Dude Was a Muslim?". The "body" of the commentary answers the question posed in the title... Answer? "Abdullard"... ha ha. Hilarious! (no, not really).

And I have not (and will not) author a 1000 word post in response (as one commenter claimed I would), I would, however, like to respond to a few of the accusations made by idiots in the comment thread...

Dennis Marks: He'll get his pony tail in a knot if he reads that, Will. (8/17/2014 AT 7:01pm).

Dennis Marks: ...when I (rightfully) accused WD of spamming, his response was to send 38 comments in which he focused on the phallus. And thanks to him, over Christmas, I learned far more about anal sex lube than I had ever known before (that past amount of knowledge being "none at all"). (8/18/2014 AT 5:04am).

First of all, I don't sport a ponytail, although I think Dennis might. And Dennis would have no idea even if I did, as there are no pictures of me online (and Dennis and I have never met). In regards to the second comment, this is in reply to Lester saying he thinks I might be "be a gay who hasn't left the closet". What is this, gay-bashing?

What Dennis claims is a lie. He WRONGLY accused me of spamming his blog. I submitted an ON TOPIC comment to his blog that he did not like. He deleted it and called me a spammer. In response I sent him some examples of what REAL spam looks like (male enhancement info). I did this as a joke, and because I was not happy about him deleting my comment and then lying about what it said (he described it as spam and "low-content" and called me a troll).

Funny, because that is what I thought about his post (on his now closed blog)... that it was "low content". In any case, it's one thing if Dennis does not want me to comment on his blog, but deleting comments and then lying about what was written? I admit that made me mad. So I played a little joke on him. Now he lies about the joke. The latest example being this bullshit about "anal sex lube". I never sent him a damn thing that mentioned this kind of lube. This is something Dennis imagined/lied about.

Although it does show where his mind is at. Dennis constantly is discussing things like "Weinergrams" and various gay-sex-related subjects. Which makes me think it is Dennis who is "a gay who hasn't left the closet".

OST #30. See also PPP #34.

Friday, August 8, 2014

Another Willis "Factoid" For The Fake History Books?

My reply to the following comment from Libertarian blogger Willis Hart, posted here due to me being banned from comment on his blog. A blog that, while I am not allowed to post replies to, is still a place where those who do comment there continue to talk about, and lie about, this blogger.

Willis Hart: wd is the least objective individual in all of recorded history. (8/7/2014 AT 4:42pm)

Wow! In ALL of recorded history, huh? Is that "fact" going to be recorded in the history books? Does not matter if it isn't, I suppose. Willis will just insist that it has been.

OST #29

Friday, August 1, 2014

On Willis Hart's Obliviousness In Regards To Societal Norms & How They Evolve

I've been reading this asshole's blog for awhile now, even though the jerk is too cowardly to publish any of my comments, explaining "I put a book over the comments section and when I see his jerk-off name I immediately click delete".

Fact is, that this yellow belly is too chicken to publish my comments is why I started this blog. So I could have a place to respond, when, after reading some of the Hartster's nonsense, I feel the need to talk back to his idiocy.

Today the idiocy in question is Willis' apparent obvious obliviousness when it comes to societal norms and the FACT that they evolve over time. Now, the Hartster has spent a LOT of time on his blog recently defending the Southern States and people of the South during the time of slavery and the Civil War era.

A lot of this defense relies on vilifying President Lincoln, a president who is frequently rated as one of America's best presidents. Now, I'm not going to address that issue with this commentary, except to say that President Lincoln is on record as being against slavery. That is a FACT.

The issue I want to focus on is Willis' ridiculous attempt to hold the inhabitants of the slavery free North to the societal norms of TODAY. The North being cast as the "good guys" is a "rewriting" of history that the Hartster won't stand for. They (the Northerners) were just as racist, says the straw-man-loving Willis.

And, make no mistake about it, but his "Northerners racist" argument is a strawman, because nobody has ever claimed that Northerners were "motivated primarily by racial justice" as the strawman-loving Willis claims. Of course they weren't, you dipshit. This is a TOTAL strawman. Yet the dissembling dummy actually claims that there is a Leftist conspiracy of (socialist?) scholars who are pushing this false narrative. (The Left engages in "partisan scholarship", he says).

But NOBODY ever claimed that the North was motivated by "racial justice", primarily, secondary or AT ALL. One of the more recent stoopids I read on the blog of Willis is that he is planning on publishing some comments from abolitionists of the time. I presume that some of them might have said some not-that-flattering things in regards to Black people.

As if this proves that the Civil War wasn't fought because of slavery. It does not. But Willis thinks he can apply the societal norms of today to the people who lived during this time period. They're all racists in his opinion because they CONFORMED to the societal norms of their time.

Today we know better. People are individuals and judging anyone by their "race" is completely idiotic, given the fact that there is no gene for race. Some of us have different skin colors and different cultures, but we are all human beings.

TODAY we know that. But the societal norms of today took time to form. Now, I'm not excusing the racism of the past. I am only stating the facts. Judging people of that era against the societal norms of today is ridiculous. As is claiming that being accepting of slavery (and allowing it) is less racist than not allowing it, which the Hartster is also doing on his blog.

Did President Lincoln view African Americans as inferior? Yes he did. Did a lot of Northerners share his views? Yes they did. Was ANYONE motivated to go to war with the South because they thought "racial justice" demanded the abolishment of slavery and because they thought negroes were the equal of Whites? I would guess that statement applied to VERY few Northerners.

But, despite this, was the Civil War still fought because of slavery? YES. Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens cited African slavery as the immediate cause of secession, as did the "declaration of causes" documents of several of the succeeding states.

What the societal norms of the time were does not change these facts, Willis, you lover of strawmen! Jeez... what a dope. I'd tell this guy to "open a history book", but now he no longer believes they all agree with him... but the reason for that is... a Leftist conspiracy has resulted in "partisan scholarship".

OST #28

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Willis Hart Whines About Protests Concerning History Rewriting Libertarians

Lincoln was a power hungry and greedy dude who didn't give a damn about the evil of slavery. His only concern was squeezing the South for all the money he could (in the form of tariffs) to pay off his cronies... and THAT is why the Civil War was fought. Because the tyrant Lincoln would not let the Southern states leave the Union, as he should have! Slavery actually had very little to do with it.

Or, that is the rewriting of history supported by one delusional self-indoctrinated Libertarian named Willis Hart. The latest delusion? That there is a conspiracy among scholars of history to rewrite ALL OF IT in a manner that benefits the Left.

Commentary disclosing this conspiracy from Willis as follows...

Willis Hart: "On Partisan Scholarship"... The left has been peddling its wares in history for decades now (Eric Foner, James McPherson, Dean Sprague, Howard Zinn, Mark Neely, Arthur Schlesinger, Gary Wills, George Fletcher, Doris Kearns "I used to work for LBJ and vacationed with the Kennedys" Goodwin", etc.) and I have yet to hear a solitary clarion call to protest it. It was only when the libertarians started writing on historical subjects (ironic in that most of these writers has been every bit as tough on the Republicans as they've been on the Democrats) that the protesting started and it seems to be getting worse. My thoughts on the subject are clear; namely, that every damn side should be heard and what in the hell are we really worrying about here anyway? (Posted to the Contra O'Reilly blog on 7/29/2014 AT 7:48pm).

Yeah, sure, Willis. All sides should be heard. The side that believes in actual scholarship, which means accurately reporting on historical events, as well as other sides that believe rewriting history is an opportunity for them to validate their inane political beliefs. The liars, in other words.

Let both those who are reporting historical facts and those who are lying about the past be heard. Oh, wait, they ARE! This is just Willis whining about his side's rewriting of history being called out.

If you're going to lie and rewrite history, actual historians who strive for truth and accuracy have a Right, nay, an OBLIGATION to protest. But the Hartster says, "hey, shut up about the lying. How are Libertarians supposed to fool people into believing their garbage if actual historians protest these lies"?

And, just because Libertarian "historians" are peddling LIES that does not mean scholarship is "partisan". It only means the "scholarship" of the Libertarians is partisan!

This is the "both sides are equally guilty" canard that those who are WRONG have been peddling for some time now. Their bullshit is rightly met with skepticism by the public, so they attempt to muddy the waters by attempting to paint FACTS as partisan opinions.

"They present their opinions and we present ours" they'll say. That is fair, right? Except that they're LYING to further THEIR partisan agenda.

One of the latest examples of this... or one that I recently became aware of due to it's promotion on the "rAtional" nAtion blog, is the ahistorial meme that crony capitalism began with FDR. This would be the same FDR who welcomed the hatred of the economic royalists. (I refer to a blog post by the proprietor titled "Is the Republican Congress Likely To Continue New Deal Era Corporate Welfare").

So, I looked into it and found a reference to a new book by David Stockman on the Libertarian Misses website titled The Great Deformation (this lengthy tome of 770 pages is a rewriting of history that purports to expose the New Deal's "true legacy", which is "crony capitalism and fiscal demise").

As it turns out, this is another dishonest accounting of history that attempts to blame the recent economic downturn on Fannie and Freddie, etc. It was all the fault of poor people buying houses they couldn't afford, and the government forcing (via regulations) banks to make those (bad) loans. But, that is simply more history rewriting (it's utter bullplop, in other words).

Stockman even blames (among other FDR era laws) the Wagner Act, which was a law that allowed for workers more equal power with employers by allowing them to form unions. Sure, because employers not being able to screw workers is a BAD thing and is absolutely responsible for the rise of crony capitalism.

Because unions want to make sure their rights are protected and donate (in significantly lesser amounts than the plutocrats), I presume. But then the plutocrats might not have to spend so much bribing politicians if not for the dastardly unions. So Stockman's argument is that we should just let our corporate masters have their way (screw workers and poison the environment) and that will be economically beneficial? Beneficial to the plutocrats, that is.

And that is what all this history rewriting is all about, folks. Justifying policies that favor the wealthy. As far as making Lincoln out to be a tyrant, the reason behind that is so blame can be placed on a LIBERAL Republican for the sorry economic state of the (solidly Red) South today.

OST #27

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

On Willis Hart Lying About Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee Asserting that the U.S. Border With Mexico is Secure

The following post; a commentary which is complete and utter bullplop, from the blog of the liar known as "Will Take No Prisoners Hart" (AKA Willis Hart, AKA WTNPH)...

Willis Hart: "On Congresswoman, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Asserting that the U.S. Border With Mexico is Secure"... I'll take, "Just One More Pitch-Perfect Example of Why We Need to Vote Every Single One of these Cork-Soakers Out of Office", for a thousand, Alex (posted to the blog "Contra O'Reilly" on 7/10/2014 at 4:56pm).

Problem is, Congresswoman Jackson-Lee did NOT say the US/Mexico border is secure... and the following partial transcript proves it!

Via the Breitbart website...

JACKSON LEE: [T]hen on the other end, Craig, we have got to be able to deal with their care and then deal with our border. I disagree that our border is in devastating condition. Our border patrol agents are doing their job.

MELVIN: Do you think the border is secure?


JACKSON LEE: I think our border with now 21,000 border patrol agents is under control. We need to give them more resources, more equipment and they can stand to have more support as it relates to the increasing of those numbers that may come through the supplemental. There's a large amount of money for increasing numbers of border patrol and ICE officers. But I would not cry fire to suggest that our border patrol agents are not on the job. They are on the job. I have spoken to them. I have been on the border, I have been on the Rio Grande. I have been on the border at night. (Video below).

She says the border is "under control", not secure. Also notice the bit in emphasized in red (added by me)? What she said is actually far different than what the lying Willis boiled it down to. And the Breitbart (not a Leftwing site) header says "Shelia Jackson-Lee: I disagree that our border is in devastating condition".

"Not in devastating condition" is the same as saying it is "secure"??? I think not, Willis, you liar!

In any case, I AGREE with Jackson-Lee and The Economist, which says "The US-Mexico border [is] Secure enough".

The Economist: Spending billions more on fences and drones will do more harm than good. ...border enforcement costs $18 billion a year, more than all other federal criminal-law-enforcement agencies combined. ... Most of America's 2,000-mile southern border is tighter than it has ever been. Greater use of surveillance technology may reduce crossings further. Yet the growth in numbers from Central America shows how strong the "push" factors behind migration remain. America's politicians may or may not find a way to declare the border "secure". But if Mexico's economy stutters, or violent crime soars again, the magnets of high wages, jobs and security across the border will prove too powerful for many to resist (6/22/2013).

The article also notes that Republican Senator John Cornyn refuses to talk immigration reform until "the southern border is 90% secure", yet some estimates say it is already 87% secure. This "secure the border" meme is, in other words, a political ploy.

One that the Hartster has clearly fallen for. And I thought he knew better. I mean, the dude has argued for more immigration (to provide cheap labor for the plutocrat's factories, in order that they don't have to go overseas when they are desirous of exploiting workers).

The truth is, we spend way too much on border security. A much better use of these monies would be enforcement of laws that say you must be an American citizen (or have a work visa) to secure employment in the United States.

That IS the reason people cross our Southern border... for jobs. No jobs; no reason to come. But wealth-worshippers like the Hartster know that is the LAST thing the plutocrats want (to cut off their supply of cheap labor).

That is why Republicans misdirect with baloney about "securing the border". And playing to the xenophobia of their base helps them accomplish their goal of keeping illegal workers illegal.

With a path to citizenship the illegal workers could come out of the shadows; the shadows where they have no choice but to tolerate being pushed around by employers who tell them they must accept low wages and unsafe working conditions or be reported to ICE.

The "secure the borders" crowd is a part of the deception designed to keep wages low and working conditions unsafe... and WTNPH, with his dishonest commentary about Shelia Jackson-Lee aligns himself with these liars. And for that I say, shame on you, Willis!

OST #26. See also SWTD #265.

Sunday, July 27, 2014

A Folk Who Isn't Upset Re Willis' Ignorance of Hitler's Plans Of War With England & The West

More ignorance from the clueless Libertarian blogger Willis Hart, this time in regards to WWII and the plans of Adolf Hitler...

Willis Hart: I don't think that there's a lot of evidence that Hitler wanted a war with England and the West... Of course, by saying that, I know that I'm probably going to upset some folks. (5/23/2014 AT 7:52pm).content

Actually, Willis, there is SOME evidence...

Gerhard Weinberg: ...Hitler built up the German navy and began work on a long-range bombeer - the notorious Amerika Bomber - which would be capable of flying to New York and back without refueling. ...Hitler embarked on a crash building program of superbattleships promptly after the defeat of France. In addition, he began accumulating air and sea bases on the Atlantic coast to facilitate attacks on the United States. (excerpt from the 11/22/2006 History News Network article Hitler's Plan to Attack America).

An Amerika Bomber, huh? And, as noted by Wikipedia "the concept was raised as early as 1938". That was in the very year that Neville Chamberlain (Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from May 1937 to May 1940) signed the Munich Agreement "conceding the German-populated Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Germany" (on 9/30/1938).

He did that to prevent war. War had not broken out yet (WWII lasted from 1939 to 1945). So, what we have here - in regards to the Amerika bomber and his buildup of "air and sea bases on the Atlantic coast to facilitate attacks on the United States" after the defeat of France (6/22/1940) - is Hitler at least thinking war with the United States could be a possibility. And throwing a LOT of resources into building up for that possibility.

Britian declared war on Gernmany on 9/3/1939 and American declared on 12/11/1941 when "Germany and Italy declare war on the United States" and the US reciprocates. Note that both these events took place quite awhile after Hitler thought war with these countries might happen - and made plans and took action (by expending resources) in case that happened. I suppose that doesn't mean he WANTED a war with England and the West, but it surely qualifies as some evidence that it occurred to him that it might happen.

And that his plans of European conquest might very well lead to war with England and the West. I mean, I think you could make a strong case that if he did not want war with England and the West he would have avoided actions (he could be fairly certain) would provoke England and the West... no?

Anyway, as far ignorance by Mr. Hart is concerned... he actually seems to me to be a very well read individual. This ignorance, I think, is him being ignorant in regards to things he WANTS to be ignorant on. That is, he dismisses evidence that doesn't fit into his paradigm, regardless of how strong it might be.

In regard to that - I admit it is something everyone of us is guilty of to some degree. The ironic thing being that the Hartster does not admit he's guilty of it AT ALL. As an "Independant" (small "l" Libertarian) he portrays himself (falsely) as being ABOVE such things, which, if you read his blog, you will find is really quite the LOL-able claim.

With this claim that there isn't evidence that Hitler wanted a war with England and the West, the Hartster is attempting to justify his claim that he's "anti war" (as his blog header claims), which is a claim he's SUPER serious about (with his MANY posts vilifying Abraham Lincoln and saying the Civil War shouldn't have been fought).

With the post in question, "In Defense of Neville Chamberlain", he's saying... what, I'm not exactly sure. Perhaps that if the appeasement strategy had been continued Germany would have conquered all of Europe but left Britain? Maybe he would have (conquered all of Europe but left Britain alone), but would allowing that have been a good idea?

Image: Messerschmitt Me 264 Amerika bomber, its objective: being able to strike continental USA from Germany, 1942. Photo from the website Rare Historical Photos.

OST #25

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Naive Stooge Willis Hart Endorses "Compromise" That Is Really A Plutocratic Trojan Horse

Want to concentrate wealth at the top to an even greater degree than it already is? Well, it so happens that one Libertarian "economist" has come up with just such a plan. And it is a plan he has deceptively labeled a "compromise".

And wouldn't you know it, but this "compromise" has fooled one naive stooge into raving about it on his blog.

Willis Hart: Economist, Charles Murray (a libertarian), has put forth what he considers to be a grand bargain to the progressives. He says that we, the libertarians (and, no, not every libertarian is completely on board with this), will give the left its big spending. But the left will have to give the libertarians much more economic freedom. His specific proposal (which is essentially a modified version of Friedman's negative income tax) would be to provide to every poor family a minimum monthly income (think of the Earned Income Tax Credit beefed up and spread out more) to which these folks could spend in the manner that THEY desire. The only catch here is that any help beyond this (say that a person spends their whole check in the first week on booze) would have to come from family, friends, charity, etc.

It's a pretty darn good plan, I think, in that it a) empowers the individual citizen, b) at least partially puts the private sector in charge of charity/welfare (the assertion here being that the private sector would be much more adapt at determining who deserves the assistance as opposed to a swift kick in the pants), and c) radically reduces the size of the federal bureaucracy in that the bulk of the money will be going directly to those citizens who need it. I mean, I know that this is a radical approach to some folks but maybe a radical approach is exactly what the country needs at this point just to break the damned logjam. (7/21/2014 AT 7:56pm).

Yes, this a pretty darn good plan if your goal is to increase the gulf between the rich and poor. I'm positive it would do a GREAT job of accomplishing that goal. Which is why this Libertarian economist proposed it, of course.

"Economic freedom" is code for paying workers less (you KNOW an abolition of the minimum wage would be a part of this bogus "grand compromise") and destroying American jobs via outsourcing (although, with the minimum wage gone, the outsourcing might be less than you would think).

Another goal is shifting more of the tax burden onto the backs of the middle class... this includes new taxes to make up for the low low wages employers will be able to force workers to accept (workers who have no choice).

That said, I doubt this roadmap to plutocracy will fool many Progressives. And, make no mistake - that is what this is - a Trojan horse that would (if we were so stupid as to go along with it) concentrate wealth at the top to an even GREATER degree than it is currently concentrated. We're talking 3rd world like slums. THAT is what the Libertarians truly desire.

Finally, and this is a BIGGIE... what about doing away with Corporate Welfare? That ISN'T a part of the "compromise"?? It's just the negative income tax in exchange for more "economic freedom"?

Seriously, forget it. *If* Progressives were to agree to any "compromise" eliminating Corporate Welfare would need to be a PILLAR of that compromise. Yet Willis does not mention it.

Now, I did not Google for any info and am only going by what is in Willis' post. But if eliminating Corporate Welfare HAD been a part of Charles Murray's "compromise" I think Willis would have said so. So I assume that it isn't, and that is undoubtedly proof that this "compromise" is completely bogus, given the fact that our government subsidizes Corporations to the tune of almost double what we spend on Social Welfare (59 versus 92 billion in 2006).

So, even though Libertarians rail again "crony capitalism" (a component of corporate welfare) this "economist" doesn't make it a part of his "compromise". Sorry, dude, but if that really is the case any Progressive worth his salt would laugh and tell Mr. Murray to stuff his "compromise". They would not even sit down at the negotiating table.

As for the minimum wage, there is no way in hell any Progressive would agree to eliminating it completely. Nor would they agree to reducing regulations so Corporations could slack off on workplace safety and endanger the lives of a lot of workers. Given that, I'm pretty sure this "compromise" would be a no go from the get go.

BTW, notice that Willis is upfront about Charles Murray being a Libertarian. That is because his being a Libertarian is important to the post. He is a Libertarian proposing a "compromise" to the Progressives. But you KNOW that if Willis were only presenting the "sage" words of an economist (who is also a Libertarian), Willis would absolutely NOT mention his political leanings.

I know this because he does it constantly. He presents economic or scientific ideas from "scientists" and "economists"... while NEVER revealing their biases. And, usually these ideas are presented sans links. Willis does this because he wants his readers to accept what he says at face value. He doesn't want anyone looking into what he says and discovering the STRONG biases and corporate ties of the individuals whose ideas he presents. Heck, he often even fails to tell you where (or who) the idea came from!

The Hartster is a very good stooge in that respect. A VERY good one. No doubt this guy would be an excellent propagandist for the interests of the wealthy if he had a bigger platform.

OST #24

Saturday, July 19, 2014

On The Minimum Wage Being A "Racist Law"

Yes, you read that correctly. Willis Hart of the blog Contra O'Reilly is claiming that the minimum wage is "racist".

Willis Hart: A boon to white middle-class teenagers living at home and a death knell to inner-city black youngsters who've dropped out of school. A racist law, in other words. (7/17/2014 AT 11:08pm).

My response? Completely ridiculous and almost 100 percent false. By the way, is it just me, or does anyone else notice how short most of Willis' commentaries are? The reason is because he includes ZERO supporting research (no links, no names, nada). He simply parrots Libertarian think tank authors without saying where the info came from. Most of the time. Sometimes he cites attribution, but most of the time he does not.

The reason is because doing so would make his bunk easier to debunk. And because he is intellectually lazy. All his points of view come back to what would benefit the already wealthy the most. In this case, it is underpaying Black teens by doing away with the minimum wage.

Just how much does Willis want to underpay BLACK teens (and African American male teens, specifically)? Read on for the answer...

Willis Hart: Remember when we used to have teenage kids come out and pump our gas for a couple of bucks an hour? And it wasn't just a job, either, in that when there weren't any customers these kids used to hang out with the mechanics and actually learn stuff. Now they just sit at home and play video games or worse still, get into trouble. (7/18/2014 AT 8:57am).

Only a "couple of bucks an hour"! The mentoring doesn't sound like a bad idea, but what shop owner would allow their mechanics to be distracted in this manner? Anyway, Willis refers to a bygone era. There are no kids pumping gas anymore, and certainly not in the inner cities.

And speaking of a bygone era, what does Willis want to pay, 1960's wages? Has he not heard of something called inflation? Also, another thing Willis has apparently not heard of, is the fact that there is a teen exemption to the minimum wage.

US Department of Labor Website: The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires a minimum of not less than $4.25 per hour for employees under 20 years of age during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer. After 90 days of employment, or when the worker reaches age 20 (whichever comes first), the worker must receive the minimum wage. (Link).

The exemption is 90 days because summer vacation is approximately that long. In other words, what Willis is really saying is that he wants to give young Black men the shaft; not "teens". I don't know about you, but this attitude is what smacks of racism to me, NOT the minimum wage. Opposing the minimum wage smacks of wealth worship. Willis wants to do away with the minimum wage so the plutocrats can screw employees out of decent pay... and keep that pay for themselves.

Of course the rebuttal to this argument is to bring up small business owners, but this argument is a canard. The minimum wage sets a floor. If the larger employers have to pay it then the smaller ones will be able to afford it.

In any case, this entire argument is predicated on the false assumption of the Hartster that the minimum wage is harmful. Which it is NOT. The opposite is actually true.

Center for American Progress: Raising the Minimum Wage Would Help, Not Hurt, Our Economy... A higher minimum wage not only increases workers' incomes - which is sorely needed to boost demand and get the economy going - but it also reduces turnover, cuts the costs that low-road employers impose on taxpayers, and... a significant body of academic research finds that raising the minimum wage does not result in job losses, even during periods when the unemployment rate is high. (Excerpt from a 12/3/2013 article by T. William Lester, David Madland, and Jackie Odum).

Finally, in regards to an "expert" that Willis cites to "prove" that teen unemployment goes up in states that increase the minimum wage... Willis cites Robert P Murphy... who is... wait for it... a Libertarian who is an associated scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and a research fellow with the Independent Institute (another Libertarian think tank).

Robert P Murphy also works at The Institute for Energy Research (IER), which "is a Washington, DC-based non-profit advocacy organization with strong ties to the oil industry", and a senior fellow in business and economic studies at the Pacific Research Institute.

It is worth noting Murphy's business lobby ties, as a 2011 study from economists at the University of California "demonstrates how a body of previous research – one frequently relied on by business lobbyists who oppose minimum wage increases – inaccurately attributes declines in employment to increases in the minimum wage".

Institute for Research on Labor and Employment (excerpt from an article posted by Anne Thompson to the Campaign for America's Future website, regarding a 4/2011 study)... [The study] examined every state and federal minimum wage increase over the past two decades and found that they did not lead to declines in teen employment. Their analysis included an in-depth examination of minimum wage increases during times of high unemployment - including the Great Recession of 2007-2009 - and found that even in these difficult economic periods, increases in the minimum wage did not cause job loss or slow rehiring. (Sylvia Allegretto, Arindrajit Dube, and Michael Reich. 2011. "Do Minimum Wages Really Reduce Teen Employment? Accounting for Heterogeneity and Selectivity in State Panel Data". IRLE Working Paper No. 166-08).

Wikipedia also notes that Robert P. Murphy "has presented an online video class in libertarian anarcho-capitalism [which] is a political philosophy which advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty, private property, and open markets".

Yeah, this dude sounds like a very rational fellow... not! What he is is an example of why Willis doesn't cite sources... because they are usually as biased and nutty as this guy!

OST #23

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

On History Books Always Agreeing With Willis Hart & People Who Disagree With Him Not Reading Them

History books always seem to agree with Willis Hart, or at least he thinks they always do...

Willis Hart: I really think that Mr. Obama needs to open a history book and study what President Hoover did in response to the depression and hopefully garner a lesson or two from it... (7/8/2014 AT 3:14pm).

To everyone who disagrees with Willis he gives the advice that they should "open a history book". Even a highly educated man like our president is a dumb-dumb in the eyes of Willis the egomaniac.

Don't believe me? Here's an example of Willis denying the root cause of the Civil War was slavery. And calling me a "total moron" for not agreeing with him that the history books say this is the case.

Willis Hart: He's a total moron... Anybody who's taken as little as an introductory history course knows that slavery wasn't the predominant reason for Lincoln's actions or even the South's... (3/22/2014 AT 2:44pm).

Wrong. Lincoln was motivated by his desire to keep the union intact, but the South absolutely did cite slavery as THE motivating factor. African slavery was the "immediate cause" of secession according to Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens.

And, by the way, the history books disagree with Willis.

Willis is wrong on slavery not being the root cause of the civil war, and also wrong on the minimum wage being economically bad (the subject of the minimum wage is what Willis is ranting ranting against in the 1st quote from his blog).

The Center For American Progress: Raising the minimum wage would be good for our economy. A higher minimum wage not only increases workers' incomes - which is sorely needed to boost demand and get the economy going - but it also reduces turnover, cuts the costs that low-road employers impose on taxpayers, and pushes businesses toward a high-road, high-human-capital model. (Excerpt from a 9/13/2013 article, "Raising the Minimum Wage Would Help, Not Hurt, Our Economy").

Putting more money into the hands of workers would increase demand because workers would spend that money back into the economy. This argument that businesses would have to fire people is false. The increased demand would pay for the wage increase.

Instead Willis wants to keep workers poor just so those at the top can get a bigger piece of the pie. And Willis' fellow stooges over at his echo chamber actually have the audacity to call those desiring a living wage "greedy"!

It is quite shameful in my opinion. And this nonsense about history books always agreeing with Willis is idiotic. I am sure our president is well read when it comes to the history of America. He probably just does not read whatever Libertarian-authored history-revising tomes that the gullible Hartster reads.

OST #22

Friday, July 4, 2014

A Kool Aide Potluck On the Blog Of Obama-Basher Willis Hart

This recent commentary from the Obama-bashing Willis Hart, followed by a Obama-bashing comment from a fellow kool aide drinkers Rusty and Dennis.

Willis Hart: "On Bush and Obama"... I'll take, "The Worst Back to Back Presidential Combination Since Hoover and FDR (Who in Turn Were the Worst Back to Back Presidential Combination Since Taft and Wilson)", for a thousand, Alex. (7/3/2014 AT 8:38pm).

Rusty Schmuckelford: This is a point well made Will. Bush's second term was an absolute cluster. Obama has to be classified as a failure... except to the Kool Aide drinkers. Look at the shape America is in... we can thank these two. (7/3/2014 AT 9:29pm).

Dennis Marks: And in terms of malaise and inflation, Ford and Carter... Time to get out your "W.I.N." button? (7/4/2014 AT 2:21am).

Looks like both Rusty and Dennis gulped down Willis' Kool Aide and then offered up some Kool Aide of their own. Must be a Kool Aide potluck.

In reality it is the obstructionist Republicans congress which has prevented Obama from doing much. They are responsible for the current situation far more than Obama... who I am not saying is perfect, by any means. But the kool aid drinkers like Rusty will continue to label him a "failure".

The game show Jeopardy, btw, deals in facts and NOT the opinions of Obama-bashers, so Willis refers to a Jeopardy question that will never be.

OST #21

Friday, June 27, 2014

An Attempt by Willis Hart to Flatter Me Into Leaving His Blog?

Willis Hart wants me to leave his blog and never return. Or, at least not submit any further comments. The last attempt to get me to depart was a comment (actually multiple comments) from him claiming that he no longer is reading anything I submit. Not even "accidentally", as he is using a "cutout" to cover his computer screen. A piece of paper that covers up the comments while leaving visible the commenter's Blogger ID.

This allows him to delete my words without ever seeing them. But, unfortunately for Willis that tactic did not work, in that I still read his blog and submit comments.

Now another tactic?

Willis Hart: "Euripides on Dealing With Idiots"... "It is not wise to speak wisdom to the foolish". (6/26/2014 AT 9:35pm).

Looks to me to be another post attempting to get me to leave. This tactic has Willis admitting he's a fool who I should stop trying to speak wisdom to him. Humm... No, I'm not going to allow flattery to cause me to do as Willis wishes either.

Besides, it's too ambiguous. If Willis wants to flatter me into leaving by admitting he's the fool - he needs to refer to both of us specifically in his post. The way he's written his post it's open to interpretation.

And I'm sure that, even though I know he's referring to my comments as "wisdom" and himself as a fool, others might interpret this post as him calling ME foolish, and him banning me because he's the wise one. I know, that doesn't make a lot of sense given how incredibly foolish the Hartster's posts can be... but the last one is just the kind of interpretation his regular readers would surely come up with.

So, sorry Willis. Even though *I* know what you're trying to say, you'll have to do better for me to even consider being flattered into departing your echo chamber.

OST #20

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Competition Will Drive Down Healthcare Costs Sez Free-Market-Magic Believing Libertarian

Willis Hart, a true believer in the Libertarian "free market" fairy tale, says those who think a healthcare free market wouldn't work for obvious reasons are wrong...

Willis Hart: "On the Idiotic Assertion that Competition Won't Bring Down the Cost of Healthcare Because Healthcare is a Necessity"... This is an easy one to refute... All that you have to do is compare healthcare spending as percentage of GDP prior to Medicare and Medicaid with that of what it's been since these programs. ... For the first 180 years or so... healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP was consistently in the low to middle single-digits, and it wasn't until government got massively involved (in the 1960s) that the numbers started skyrocketing. And the reasons for this are obvious. Whenever government gets into the business of subsiding something, the cost of that something invariably escalates. (6/10/2014 AT 7:23pm).

Missing from Willis' analysis of the healthcare market is the fact that other industrialized nations have Single Payer insurance. And THEIR subsidization is very high. However, their costs are much lower. But Willis foolishly overlooks this fact to make his magical "free market" argument.

Of course the reason prices have been going up has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that healthcare and healthcare insurance USED to be provided on a not-for-profit basis... NOT.

So why did health care costs being skyrocketing in the 60s? Willis blames government subsidization, and foolishly says it's "obvious" that "whenever government gets into the business of subsiding something, the cost of that something invariably escalates".

Sorry, but no, that was NOT the reason. As Forbes points out, in an article titled the "capitalist case for nonprofit health insurance", the reason for the costs going up was because we switched from a nonprofit to a profit model.

Forbes: Blue Cross, the most recognizable name, began in 1929 as a tax-exempt insurer... Blue Shield was started as a tax-exempt insurer... [We moved away from the nonprofit model] starting in the 1960s and through the 1980s when Wall Street discovered there was money to be made turning nonprofit health insurers, hospitals and nursing homes into investor-owned companies. (excerpt from a 10/12/2009 article by John Girouard).

So, we should be getting government out of the way and the "free market" will solve the problem when the problem was CAUSED by us going the for-profit route (free market = for profit)? I don't think so.

We already know what model works. Not-for-profit worked pre-1960 in the US, and it works in all the other industrialized nations Currently (Single Payer being not-for-profit). And a transition to single payer would be far easier to implement. Unlike the foolish Hartster's idea of getting rid of HCI altogether (except for catastrophic coverage).

Also, the assertion that competition won't bring down costs because healthcare is a necessity is not "idiotic", it is TRUE! People do not have the option of not buying AT ALL, as consumers in a true free market do. Supply and demand drives a free market, and, obviously, when the demand is such that people must buy your product or die, the supplier can charge more. The only thing idiotic here is that someone would be deluded enough (by Libertarian free market fantasies) to believe this is not the case.

OST #19. See also SWTD #261.

Monday, June 9, 2014

Tone Deaf (and Clueless) Blogger Willis Hart Comments On Latest Shooting

I wonder if this jackass laments the ongoing gun violence at all? At least a little bit, perhaps. We know from prior commentaries he thinks there is nothing that can be done about it... although he wouldn't be completely against any legislation controlling or regulating guns, but sadly it would be for "solace" only and not have any effect (or so this total moron believes).

Willis Hart: "On Tonight's News 8 Lead-In - Shooting Breaks Out in New Haven"... They should just make a damned loop-tape and be done with it. (6/8/2014 at 8:10pm).

A loop tape for Willis' blog wouldn't be a bad idea. On it he could place all the Willis Hart "greatest hits"... which would include his wish that the Southern states were a separate country, green energy bashing/sucking up to Big Oil and Big Nuke, cheering for the destruction of American jobs (outsourcing), crying/worrying about rich people being overtaxed (and RUNNING OUT of money due to a high tax rate), and (lastly, and most pertinent given the topic of his idiotic commentary) insisting that any gun legislation would be for "solace" only. Dumbass.

OST #18

Saturday, June 7, 2014

A Total Moron Ruminates On Securing the Release of Bergdahl

This utter stupidity from the blog of Willis Hart...

Will Hart: "On Securing the Release of Bergdahl"... What cost would have been TOO MUCH? That's what I want to know. I mean, what if they had wanted the Blind Sheik and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as well? Would that have been acceptable to secure the release of this character? And the fact that people died looking for him. That's what really pisses me off the most here. Frigging douche-bag. (6/7/2014 AT 7:37pm).

My God! Is this guy exceptionally obtuse or what? Omar Abdel-Rahman (AKA the Blind Sheik) is Egyptian. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is Pakistani. Neither of these individuals was ever a member of the Taliban. We negotiated with the Taliban for the release of 5 members of the Taliban. Why would the Taliban care about the Blind Sheik or KSM? Answer: they don't. They wanted THEIR people back.

If al Qaeda had captured Bergdahl we wouldn't have negotiated with them. The Taliban, for the record, has never been designated as a terrorist organization (Source).

Also, as reported by ThinkProgress, "none [of the five] were facing charges in either military or civilian courts for their actions"... and that "when wars end, prisoners taken custody must be released".

We are at war with the Taliban, and the Taliban never launched attacks against the US on non-Afghani soil. They did "harbor" al Qaeda, but the Taliban isn't al Qaeda. In fact, prior to 9/11, the Taliban made various offers to surrender or expel bin Laden, but the Bush administration was uninterested*.

In regards to taking the Taliban up on their offer to turn over bin Laden, the Hartster (and his buddy Dennis Marks) have mocked me many times (for saying we should have considered it), but the offer was genuine IMO. The Taliban did not want to be bombed or have their country invaded.

Anyway, the point is that, with this post, the dumb-dumb again conflates the two groups by moronically suggesting that the Taliban would want to negotiate for the release of members of al Qaeda. Stupid.

*Note: That the Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden is a point made by Sheldon Richman in his 5/6/2014 article for the Libertarian Reason Magazine titled "Why You Shouldn't Blame Bowe Bergdahl for Deserting in the Fog of Endless War". I also wrote about it in this post from my other blog "Sleeping with The Devil".

See also: SWTD #259.

OST #17

Thursday, June 5, 2014

The State Of Will-ful Ignorance Continues

This concerns a "commentary" on another blog titled "On the State"... and then ANOTHER commentary titled "On the State". That's right, TWO blog posts from Willis Hart, BOTH titled "On the State". The first from 3/29/2014 and the second dated 6/5/2014.

The first blog post...

Willis Hart: On the State... It is the greatest source of death and destruction known to man (it isn't even a contest), and the fact that there are still people out there who so casually want to enhance its power is exceedingly troubling. (3/29/2014 AT 12:33pm).

Then a second post with the exact same title...

Willis Hart: On the State... Left unchecked, it will almost always morph into a predator. (6/5/20144 AT 2:49pm).

So, did the Hartster simply forget that he already pontificated on the entity which he hates and fears? I mean, there is some cause for concern. In regards to the first "concern", I already addressed that in a prior commentary. In regards to the second, the State isn't "unchecked" in a democracy. We HAVE a method by which the State is checked, and it's called ELECTIONS. Sure, they don't work so well when the electorate is uninformed and does not do it's job of holding representative accountable (by removing them from office when they need to be).

But this is NOT a point that the Hartster makes with EITHER of his commentaries. Both are simply mindless fear mongering. And, by the way, these attacks on the hated "State" are ongoing and one of the primary focuses of this paranoid's blog. But has there ever ONCE been any kind of post where he worried about the power of the plutocrats? Wanna guess the answer?

Yeah, that's right... there have been absolutely zero. What's clear here is that this person doesn't trust democracy but does trust (even worship, IMO) the plutocrats. Proof of that being his unceasing support of American job killing free trade... including cheering huge job losses for American White Collar workers, hatred of blue collar workers, idiotic and nonsensical claims that the war on poverty actually subsidizes it, an historically innacurate idea that raising taxes caused the Great Depression, hatred and demonization of Green Energy (unbelivably) which includes love for Big Oil, nuclear energy and fracking... etc, etc (the list goes on and on).

Basically, if it something that enables the plutocrats to increase their wealth at the expense of average workers (or the environment), this guy is enthusiastically FOR it. Conversely, if it's something that addresses the problem of inequality or the fact that our economic system is rigged in favor of those who are already wealthy (something he vehemently denies), then Willis Hart is against it.

He's a total stooge for the oligarchs, in other words... the REAL predators.

OST #16

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

On Being So Afraid of Uncomfortable Facts That You Use A Cutout to Cover Portions of Your Computer Monitor

The blog of Willis Hart is open to the public (not a private blog). That being the case, I read and I comment, as people often do on blog postings that interest them. Now, it is true that Mr. Hart banned me from his blog for some exceedingly stupid reason (quite some time ago... on 8/30/2012).

However, seeing as the reasoning behind the banishment was idiotic, I decided to ignore it and continue reading and commenting. He no longer publishes any comments I submit, but I do not let that deter me.

Now, get this... it seems that my comments on the Hartster's blog have made him so uncomfortable - in that I frequently disagree with what he's written and say so - that the poor guy has had to resort to extremely drastic measures to avoid the cognitive dissonance my refuting of his beliefs must have been causing.

Drastic measures as described by Mr. Hart in the following post...

Willis Hart: "Note to wd"... I have developed a system in which I no longer have to even accidentally see what you write - not a single word. I am using a 4.5 x 5.5 cutout which enables me to cover the comments section but which also allows me to see the author of the words, and when I see your name I promptly delete what I can properly assume to be more of your virulent idiocy. (6/1/2014 AT 8:27am).

"Virulent idiocy" is obviously what he calls truths that contradict the misinformation he'd rather believe. I don't know about you, but I think "virulent idiocy" is a good descriptor for actions - and commentaries describing actions - such as creating a fricking cutout to cover up your screen so you don't have to read facts you don't like.

Are actions like those described by Willis pathetic or what? BTW, if you're thinking that my continuing to comment on Mr. Hart's blog when he does not want me to constitutes "harassment", I disagree.

That I'm "harassing" him is an allegation Mr. Hart has actually made against me, BTW...

"This is Your Last Warning, wd"... I've asked you on more than several occasions to cease and desist with the comments and yet you continue to spam me with your partisan and knee-jerk idiocy. If I have to tell you again, I will file a complaint with the server on grounds of harassment. (9/15/2013 AT 3:43pm).

At first I thought he was joking. Or, rather I took it as an unintentional joke, given the fact that I have never "harassed" Willis Hart. Like I said, his blog is public and available to read by anyone. And I have NEVER targeted Willis "with behavior that is meant to alarm, annoy, torment or terrorize" him, which is what "harassment" actually is (according to FindLaw.com).

So, the "harassment" charge is simply ridiculous, which is why I ignored his "warning" and continued submitting comments. Fact is, the warning convinced me that I should not give up. Nobody likes being insulted, and I absolutely refuse to go away and allow these people to continue to talk about me behind my back.

Not that I'm mad or upset as one of the commenters speculated I might be...

Dennis Marks: I hear the sound of something like a very angry version of Yosemite Sam, stamping and swearing, from inside a hermetically sealed jar in a bunker 30 miles below the surface. (6/1/2014 AT 12:21pm).

Nope, I'm not doing any of that. The comments of these bloggers actually make me laugh. I wouldn't bother if I wasn't having fun with them. Yeah, I'll probably give up commenting on Mr. Hart's blog eventually, but not quite yet. I think I'm going to give it a while longer and see what happens.

4/9/2016 Update: Me commenting on the WTNPH blog ended on 3/8/2016 after Willis restricted commenting to "team members".

OST #15

Monday, June 2, 2014

On Those Who Are Allowed To Comment On The Blog "Contra O'Reilly"

Not boot-licking enough... by which I mean I'm sure Willis would prefer his commenters lick his boots more. Lester Nation and Dennis Marks do an excellent job of it. Rusty Schmuckelford does a fair job as well... but others? Their bootlicking leaves something to be desired.

In any case, it is clear that there comes a point where Willis won't allow a person to comment if they don't at least give his boots a few licks now and again.

And, if you should criticize... you'll end up getting banned. The Hartster only allows so much dissent. And he MUST have the last word, of course. Violate that rule and you'll find yourself banned for sure. Or perhaps you'll be "band", which is how Willis spelled it when he referred to a "gun band" (on another blog).

But he might have been talking about Guns n' Roses. They are the only "gun band" I can think of at the moment... although there could be others.

OST #14

Sunday, June 1, 2014

Exciting New Literary Work From Amateur Historical Revisionist Willis Hart!

Announcing an exciting new work of historical revisionism by novice history revisor Willis Hart...

Willis Hart Pontificates on the War of Northern Aggression: A Dissertation in 1,001 Parts, Volume 1 (Where the History Books are Right and Where the History Books are Wrong).

Anyone going to be lined up at Barnes & Noble on the day this is released to get his or her copy personally autographed by Willis Hart?

Published by "The Crazy Southern Conservative History Revisionism Press" (Copyright 11/28/2014). Makes the perfect Christmas gift for your crazy Rightwing history-revising-enthusiast relative!

Rejected (unread) by more than a dozen major publishers due to Willis' REFUSAL to use paragraphs. Although, if he had used pargraphs they likely all would have rejected it anyway, due to it's major historical innacurracies ("innacurracies" some might refer to as canards).

(This post in response to a commentary from Willis regarding my "new Netflix series").

OST #13. See also SWTD #257.

Saturday, May 17, 2014

Willis Hart Lies About Extremely Dangerous Nuke Power Being "Carbon Free"

Willis Hart, a big-oil-loving climate-change-denying oligarchic-stooge-talker who hates green energy (and has devoted many posts on his blog to deriding it), foolishly and incorrectly believes that nuclear power, in addition to being safe, is "carbon free".

This is a person, believe it or not, who describes the reactions to Chernobyl and Fukushima (perhaps we should rethink going forward with this extremely dangerous energy source) as "hysteria", and worries "that the hysteria involved in these two episodes was probably a lot more harmful than the actual accident itself".

Willis Hart: And you have to realize that every country has to go through its own decarbonization process. Like in America, we started with wood (a 10:1 carbon to hydrogen ratio), went to coal (4:1), started using more oil (2:1), ditto natural gas (1:2) and then ultimately nuclear which is carbon free. And my suspicion is that the Chinese are still probably better off with the gas masks than they were back in the old days starving to death in the fields. (5/16/2014 AT 10:04pm).

Unfortunately, for Willis, this statement of misfact is completely false, as is a great number of the "facts" he dissembles on his blog of misinformation...

Christian Science Monitor: Saying nuclear is carbon-free is not true... Nuclear power has more than just a little greenhouse gas attached to it, when mining uranium ore, refining and enriching fuel, building the plant, and operating it are included. A big 1,250 megawatt plant produces the equivalent of 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year during its life... (By Mark Clayton, Staff writer, 3/7/2007).

Also notice the false choice he presents for the people of China? It's either starving to death OR wearing gas masks due to pollution... and it the latter situation in which they are "better off"!?

Is this guy a deluded stooge for the Big Energy plutocrats who benefit polluting our environment and killing us, or what? I mean, he's constantly advocating for dirty and/or dangerous forms of energy while railing against cleaner and safer forms of energy.

OST #12. See also SWTD #128.

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Channeling Willis Hart If He Was A Character in "The Day After Tomorrow"

"No, I don't believe it. This is not happening".

And then Willis would write a series of posts on his blog citing the "facts" researched by denialist "scientists" that "proved" the climate catastrophe was not happening. And then he'd go on living his life as if it wasn't. Meaning, of course, he would be one of the first to die.

Although, before he died he'd say "no, no... No I just, I just said that to avoid admitting the truth". No, just kidding. There is absolutely nothing that could happen that would cause Willis Hart to admit that he's wrong.

Granted, the movie is silly fiction, but that does not change the fact that global climate change is a very real threat caused by human-released CO2.

And in regards to doing something about that (reducing CO2 emissions), Willis Hart says "failure is definitely an option".

OST #11

Saturday, May 10, 2014

An Idiot's Challenge

Willis Hart has issued a challenge to me (note: in the challenge below Mr. Hart refers to me as "the idiot").

Willis Hart: I challenge the idiot to take a course in experimental psychology or any other discipline that involves research (he would first of course have to take and pass a course in elementary statistics which in and of itself would be a huge long-shot but, yes, I will proceed) and do an experiment in which he merges two separate data sets (he pulls a Michael Mann, in other words) in an effort to support his theory (which of course is also ass-backwards in that you never try and prove a theory in science but instead reject the null hypothesis), and which he also confesses to the teacher of his actions. I challenge him to do these things and then, yes, argue with the university when the teacher either fails him or boots him out of the class for his a) dishonesty and b) impudence ('cause you know that he's gonna put forth an attitude about it). My only request here is that I be there to watch it. (5/10/2014 AT 11:04am).

I challenge Willis to argue with the university of Yale and convince them to rescind Michael Mann's MS and MPhil in physics. Think they'll listen? I mean, none of Mann's Yale instructors failed him or booted him out of their classes, so, obviously his work at Yale passed muster.

Also, I've never argued that I'm an expert in statistics or that I've ever taken any college courses that involve scientific research. I do wonder what doctorates Willis has earned, however. I'm going to guess none.

I only argue that the 97% of climate experts who agree about AGW are smarter than me. Also, that it is not likely they are involved in a conspiracy to conceal the real truth about AGW.

Apparently Willis believes he IS smarter than these scientists, however. Who knows, maybe Mann cheated in order to earn his degree? And, if that's the case, maybe the 2579 individuals with advanced degrees who agree with the consensus position also cheated to earn their degrees? That sounds plausible, right?

For the record I will be declining the idiot's challenge.

OST #10

Thursday, May 8, 2014

On CO2 Atmospheric Content Increases Being Infinitesimal & Therefore Doing Nothing Not Being Risky At All

According to the "lumanarious" AGW skeptic Roy Spencer (an individual oft quoted by the blogger Willis Hart) "the idea that severe weather, snowstorms, droughts, or floods have gotten worse due to the atmosphere now having 4 parts per 10,000 CO2, rather than 3 parts per 10,000, is... sketchy" in an article from his website titled "Hey, IPCC, quit misusing the term risk".

Mr. Spencer's Number one fan agrees, saying (in a recent post) that people thinking that this infenitesimal increase will cause a global catatastrophe "is exactly what happens when science and government crawl into bed together".

But this increase is really not as small as the Hartster implies. Dr. Barry W. Brook, a research Professor at the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute, explains - on his blog "Brave New Climate" - just how LARGE this increase in the trace gas actually is...

Barry Brook: Every cubic metre of air contains roughly 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of CO2 (10 to the 22nd power), [which is] a rather large number. ... let's try to get a feel for just how large a number this is. The number of stars within the 14-billion-light-year radius of the visible universe (Hubble volume) is estimated to be thirty billion trillion, i.e., 3 x 10 to the 22nd power. Thus, a mere 3 cubic metres of air, which would sit comfortably on most dining tables, contains as many CO2 molecules as there are stars in the vast span of the visible Universe. Bearing these mind-boggling numbers in mind, it's perhaps not quite so hard to understand how trace atmospheric gases in our atmosphere really do a good job at intercepting infrared radiation. (CO2 is a trace gas, but what does that mean?).

Sounds to me like this 33.3 percent increase is actually quite large and very much a cause for concern. Also, that Mr. Spencer's assertion that something is small when it is actually large is but one reason why this dude can't be trusted. Spencer says "hey, IPCC, quit misusing the term risk", but doing nothing when CO2 levels are increasing so dramatically sounds very risky to me.

OST #9. See also SWTD #249.

Friday, April 25, 2014

On The Climate Models Being "So Inaccurate" & 97% Of Climate Scientists Being Total F*cking Morons

Blogger Willis Hart is a strident AGW denier who constantly derides as idiots and liars the scientists who concur that global climate change is occurring, man is responsible, and it is cause for concern. Case in point, the latest from Mr. Hart...

Willis Hart: On Why the Climate Models Were So Inaccurate... It was because they were based on two equally erroneous assumptions; a) that the climate is inherently stable and b) that the major driver of climate change is CO2 - assumptions that even a second year earth science student should have been able to detect were absurd but which the well-connected ruling class utterly failed to. (4/29/2014 AT 10:49pm).

I don't know, Willis. Where the climate models really "so inaccurate"? Information I've found suggests older models were inaccurate, but newer models have actually been proven to be "remarkably accurate". This is according to an analysis of climate change modeling over the past 15 years, as written up in a 3/27/2013 paper published in the journal Nature Geoscience.

The study by Professor Myles R. Allen of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford (and colleagues) reveals that the models accurately predicted temperature increases "to within a few hundredths of a degree". Unless they're lying - that sounds pretty damn accurate to me.

Also, in regards to "assumptions that even a second year earth science student should have been able to detect were absurd" - I really wonder if these scientists are so stupid - how the hell did they earn their advanced degrees? If they fail to understand facts that "even a second year earth science student should have been able to detect were absurd" - wouldn't they have flunked out of college?

Maybe I should be more offended regarding Willis' constant slandering of the VAST majority of climate scientists? I mean, Willis was outraged when he thought I dissed the "luminaries" he admires. Problem is I acknowledge the fact that Climate Science is complicated, I know very little about it, and that there is room for dissenting opinions.

Dissenting opinions that I would never support anyone attempting to silence. I just think that when 97% of scientists agree that there is a problem and if we don't act the consequences should be severe - perhaps we should listen and actually consider doing something to at least mitigate the bad consequences?

Call me a moron, but I just don't buy into the grand conspiracy as envisioned by Mr. Hart. Seems to me that the denier's belief that no actions need be taken - and that we can continue spewing as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we want without consequence - works out nicely from those whose profits might be hurt if we actually did anything.

OST #8. See also SWTD #248.

Sunday, March 30, 2014

A State of Will-ful Ignorance

What follows is a somewhat accurate commentary by Libertarian blogger Will Hart (or Willis Hart), except that most "states", historically speaking, have not been democratic or represented the will of the people. As such, the following is in reality quite dishonest, in that we KNOW the Hartster is talking about the US Federal government...

Willis Hart: On the State... It is the greatest source of death and destruction known to man (it isn't even a contest), and the fact that there are still people out there who so casually want to enhance its power is exceedingly troubling. (3/29/2014 AT 12:33pm).

In response all I can say is... DUH!! The state is the only entity that has the power to wage war, so OF COURSE it would be the greatest source of death and destruction. However, in a democracy it is THE PEOPLE who make the decisions, through their elected officials... arguably. A democracy requires, of course, that THE PEOPLE are informed and actually vote.

When they do the result will be a Democratic State that is a force for good in the lives of its citizens. And when the people don't stay informed or vote, that is when the special interests step in and take advantage of an apathetic electorate. In other words, it's all up to the people, but the Hartster OF COURSE completely ignores that reality. In his mind a powerful State representing the people is just as bad as a powerful State that represents the (the problem with our democracy), or itself (the problem with an aristocracy).

At least Willis makes no distinction what so ever with his commentary. He simply (and stupidly) says "State bad". And, while it most certainly is true that, even in a representative democracy, we must be wary of a State that does not act in the interest of THE PEOPLE, the answer is not to neuter government by striping it of it's power so it can't do evil OR good. The answer is for the electorate to get politically informed and participate!

There is a way by which we can ensure that the State works for us. But the Hartster clearly does not want that, which is why he conflates a representative democratic State that truly acts as a proxy for THE PEOPLE with a State that "is the greatest source of death and destruction known to man", and advocates disempowerment instead of fixing what's wrong. Disempower the State (representing THE PEOPLE) and the only ones left with any power will be the plutocrats.

Now, Willis may be eager to give up (stop trying to fix government and disempower it... thereby disempowering THE PEOPLE) - so we can surrender completely to the oligarchs... but I sure as hell am not.

OST #7. See also SWTD #245