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

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.