Friday, December 18, 2015

On Willis Hart Lying About What The Black Lives Matter Movement Is Protesting About

The following from Wikipedia sums up what the focus of the Black Lives Matter movement is.

Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an international activist movement, originating in the African American community, that campaigns against violence toward black people. BLM regularly organizes protests around the deaths of black people in killings by law enforcement officers, and broader issues of racial profiling, police brutality, and racial inequality in the United States criminal justice system. (Wikipedia/Black Lives Matter).

I bring this up because the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart, while he has put up quite a few posts on his blog about BLM, CLEARLY does not understand why the movement exists.

Willis Hart: On Black Lives Mattering... There's never been an argument from me. IN FACT, being that the black murder rate is fully 6 times that of whites (17.5 per 100,000 versus 2.6 per 100,000) with the perpetrators being 93% other black people, I'm actually quite insulted that this bullshit is being placed not just at my doorstep but the law enforcement community's, too... STOP BLOWING YOUR FUCKING BRAINS OUT (much of it over foolishness; half-eaten Snickers bars, Air Jordan sneaks, some big-butted heifer, a slight, etc.), PEOPLE. BLACK LIVES MATTER!!!!!! (11/18/2015 AT 5:07pm).

What Willis claims is being "placed at his [and law enforcement's] doorstep" - IS NOT! The movement is not protesting in regards to ALL Black deaths, but ONLY Black deaths caused by law enforcement, you dolt! Although, calling Willis a dolt implies that he's simply being an oblivious White guy in not getting what the focus of BLM is.

The other possibility is that he's lying. A possibility I'm not ruling out. I mean, I think they've been QUITE clear that what they're protesting is the police killing Black people (as well as brutality directed against African Americans), and not Black (criminal) civilians killing other Black civilians. Sure, that's an issue as well, but law enforcement is supposed to enforce the law, not break it! Whereas criminals breaking the law is to be expected.

Yes, Willis is correct about the murder rate in the Black community being higher than in the White community, but I'd argue that is a symptom of the problem. That racism is the cause of the murder rate being higher, in that racism is a factor in that racism causes poverty which in turn leads to more crime.

BTW, Black criminals killing other Black people is (1) not something the Black community at large can be blamed for, and (2) something that makes perfect sense, as PolitiFact points out according to "experts... most people - whether black or white - are murdered by people in their own racial group, and that has held true for decades".

Black murderers mostly target Black victims JUST AS White murderers mostly target White victims. This is to be expected. And, in refutation of the point Willis thinks he is making, the BLM movement is NOT placing the blame for these murders on him or on law enforcement!

The ONLY "bullshit" the BLM movement is placing on the law enforcement community is holding them accountable for the Black suspects they kill (and brutalize). And I genuinely think there is a problem here, given the fact that a Black person is 300 percent more likely to be killed by a police officer than a White person.

Willis Hart, as an oblivious White guy (who flatly denies that White privilege even exists) is "offended" by the suggestion that cops killing Black suspects is a problem. In fact he lies (or misunderstands... yeah, right) about why BLM exists - which is something that OFFENDS ME!

I mean, if Willis wants to criticize BLM on a factual basis, that's one thing. But for him to put forward this lame strawman is pure bullshit, I think. Yet another example of how the strawman-loving Hartster is full of it.

OST #90

Thursday, December 17, 2015

On Why I Don't Like Willis Hart

When you lose 3 out of the 5 of your remaining commenters - maybe it indicates that I was right about Willis all along? Jerry Critter, Rational Nation and Dennis Marks... gone. Only BB Idaho and Rusty Schmuckelford remain... and they don't even comment that often.

"Take a hike, Willis boy" I say to his increasingly racist and misogynist commentaries. Misogynist diatribes like the following (which I imagine spewing from his butthole face).

On Why I Don't Like Jennifer Lawrence... 'Cause when everybody says one thing (to the point of forcing it down my throat), I say, "Take a hike, Jackie boy". That, and with a meh body she's not even a good butterface. (12/16/2015 AT 8:50pm).

Judging a woman by her fitness/body type and calling a woman a "butterface" are both things I'd say are sexist. Not to mention the fact that neither terms "meh body" nor "butterface" applies to Jennifer Lawrence.

Further proof of the Hartster's misogyny? I say yes, given the fact that he doesn't even mention whether or not he likes her movies - something where some legitimate criticisms could possibly be made. But Willis goes immediately to her looks. As if that is the most important/only factor by which to judge the worth of a woman.

And, what the hell is the one thing people are saying - to the point of forcing it down his throat? That Jennifer Lawrence is a beautiful woman? While I wouldn't argue with that, I see no evidence of anyone trying to force this down anyone's throat. If Willis doesn't like her movies, how about he doesn't watch them? Boom, done.

BTW, when I say I don't like Willis Hart, I mean I don't like him AS A BLOGGER. Just like (I assume), when he says he doesn't like Jennifer Lawrence, he means as an actress (although he IS judging her looks). I might, if I met him and got to know him, actually like Willis Hart as a person? Maybe, but I doubt it. Given how repellent I find a lot of what he writes on his blog.


OST #89

Monday, December 14, 2015

How Pitiful Is It That Willis Hart Doesn't Understand What The Purpose Of Affirmative Action Is?

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart hates Affirmative Action and wishes it was abolished. Even though he clearly does not understand what it's purpose is.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Not a Single Affirmative Action Program in All of Human History Has Ever Ended Because of Success... So, either affirmative action programs don't work (as Thomas Sowell, Stuart Taylor, and Richard Sander have asserted) or the government is so incompetent that they can't administer them (well, that and the fact that government programs never seem to go away in that the bureaucrats and special interests which benefit from them will never in a million years willingly relinquish their power). How pitiful. (12/11/2015 AT 4:08pm).

There would no longer be a need for AA programs if/when all racism is abolished. But getting rid of racism is NOT a goal of Affirmative Action! AA programs are meant to alleviate some of the inequality created by racism - and that should lead to some lessening of racism - but the problem of racism is a LOT bigger problem than AA can address.

AA can't do the job by itself. So this "success" that Willis speaks of (eliminating racism and therefore the need for AA programs) is NOT a success AA will ever achieve. Not by itself. Yet Willis puts forth this strawman in order to "discredit" Affirmative Action. How pitiful.

Apparently Willis believes government is "so incompetent" because giving African Americans opportunities hasn't magically eliminated all racism. And he (apparently) believes that encouraging/mandating diversity somehow gives "bureaucrats" power.

Also, Affirmative Action programs DO work. As Derek Bok and William Bowen have asserted in their book The Shape of the River (Far Reaching Study Documents Success of Affirmative Action).

The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions [is] the book that has forever changed the debate on affirmative action in America. [This book represents] the most far-reaching and comprehensive study of its kind. It brings a wealth of empirical evidence to bear on how race-sensitive admissions policies actually work and clearly defines the effects they have had on over 45k students of different races... [An LA Times review says that] "...the authors prove with facts, not anecdotes, that affirmative action works". (Princeton University Press).

According to Debra Humphreys (Vice President, Office of Communications, Policy and Public Engagement, Association of American Colleges & Universities), "Bok and Bowen's study demonstrates conclusively that race-sensitive admissions policies have dramatic benefits for the African American students admitted under them".

Affirmative Action programs work... in giving opportunities to deserving African Americans. The research show this to be the case. As for Thomas Sowell, Stuart Taylor, and Richard Sander (the individuals Willis cites who say Affirmative Action doesn't work)? The reason they give, a theory known as "mismatch", has been debunked (more on that with my next commentary).

The bottom line here is that the "success" that Willis Hart says we should see if Affirmative Action programs worked - eliminating racism - is NOT a problem that AA can solve. Not be itself, at least. That AA programs can eliminate racism is a strawman invention being put forward by Libertarian (and Conservative) racists like the Hartster.

As opposed to failing because racism still exists (racism that makes it harder for African Americans to succeed), the data shows that AA programs work.

OST #88

Friday, December 11, 2015

Willis Hart A Bald-Faced Liar & Ignoramus Re The Non-Fact Of Bernie Sanders Blaming ISIS On AGW

Bernie Sanders, due to him being a Democratic Socialist who is running for POTUS, has inspired the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart to author a number of commentaries. Most of them focusing on how much of a dumbass Sanders is for not being a Libertarian.

In this case Willis is outraged that Senator Sanders correctly links ISIS in Syria to AGW (man-caused climate change).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Bernie Sanders Is Attempting to Blame ISIS on (Man-Made) Climate Change... This man is either a bald-faced liar or an ignoramus beyond belief. (12/8/2015 AT 3:57pm).

The existence of ISIS cannot be blamed on man-caused climate change (Anthropogenic global warming or AGW) and Senator Sanders has made no such argument. Willis lies about this. Or he's an ignoramus and his take on Senator Sanders' actual argument is based on 2nd hand criticisms (from Conservative/Libertarian sources that are lying).

Either way there is lying involved, because, as we know (and perhaps Willis would agree with this) it was events put into action by former preznit gwb that lead to an environment where the formation of a group like ISIS was inevitable (the power vacuum created by the Iraq war/removal of Saddam and the dissolution of the Iraqi military).

Senator Sanders agrees with this read of the facts (as does the Libertarian-Republican Rand Paul).

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on [10/12/2014] told CNN host Candy Crowley that it was easy to criticize President Barack Obama's fight against ISIS in Iraq, but he reminded her that it was President George Bush's "disastrous blunder" that allowed the extremists group to get a foothold in the first place.

[According to Sanders] "...We are here today because of the disastrous blunder of the Bush-Cheney era, which got us into this war in Iraq in the first place, which then developed the can of worms that we're trying to deal with right now" (Bernie Sanders reminds CNN host: You can slam Obama, but Bush's blunder created ISIS by David Edwards. RawStory 10/12/2014).

This claim that "Bernie Sanders Is Attempting to Blame ISIS on Man-Made Climate Change" is just another of the Hartster's infamous strawmen. Bernie Sanders blames ISIS on george bush's Iraq invasion.

As for the ACTUAL statements Senator Sanders has made in regards to the link between climate change and terrorism (and YES, he has made such statements)...

Bernie Sanders appearing on the 11/15/2015 edition of Face the Nation: ...we are going to see an increase in drought and flood and extreme weather disturbances as a result of climate change, what that means is that peoples all over the world are going to be fighting over limited natural resources... what happens in, say, Syria... is that when you have drought, when people can't grow their crops, they're going to migrate into cities...

And when people migrate into cities and they don't have jobs, there's going to be a lot more instability, a lot more unemployment, and people will be subject to the types of propaganda that al Qaeda and ISIS are using right now... So where you have discontent, where you have instability, that's where problems arise, and certainly, without a doubt, climate change will lead to that. (Sanders doubles down: Climate change causes terrorism by Bradford Richardson. The Hill 11/15/2015).

ISIS can't be blamed on man made climate change. There is a link, however.

U.S. military officials refer to climate change as a "threat multiplier" that takes issues like terrorism that would pose a threat to national security and exacerbates the damage they can cause. A 2014 Department of Defense report identifies climate change as the root of government instability that leads to widespread migration [and] can create an avenue for extremist ideologies and conditions that foster terrorism"...

...a paper published in the academic journal PNAS earlier this year argues that climate change helped create instability and fighting in Syria. The Islamic State, commonly known as ISIS, arose in the country in large part due to that instability. (Why Climate Change and Terrorism Are Connected by Justin Worland. Time 11/15/2015).

Senator Sanders did not, by the way, "double down" and say "climate change causes terrorism". What Senator Sanders is saying is the SAME THING the Department of Defense and PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is "one of the world's most-cited and comprehensive multidisciplinary scientific journals") reports say... that climate change will (and has) made terrorism worse.

But the fact that Sanders is 100 percent correct on this did not prevent him being ridiculed in the media. By climate change deniers on the Right (like Willis) as well as others such as PolitiFact... which says Sanders' statements on the link between terrorism and climate change is "mostly false". But (in this case) PolitiFact is as full of shit as Willis.

But even PolitiFact didn't lie about Sanders saying climate change is TO BLAME for ISIS. PolitiFact reports that Sanders said "climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism". Climate change contributes to the growth (not creation) of situations that lead to more people becoming radicalized.

One such situation (as Senator Sanders points out) is the Syrian drought which has lead to the the refugee crisis. Refugees that US Republican politicos are demonizing by suggesting some might be ISIS infiltrators. These are people who are fleeing the conflict (between the Assad government, the so-called moderate rebels and ISIS).

For the record, the Syrians that joined ISIS (due to the instability caused by the conflict and made worse by the drought) could find easier methods to infiltrate over a multi-year vetting process (which the refugees are going through) [1]... such as via a tourist visa [2].

The bottom line is that climate change does act as a "threat multiplier" as the Department of Defense (in agreement with Senator Sanders) acknowledges. Sanders tells tells the truth in regards to this matter and Willis Hart is the ignorant liar. Although the Hartster's perfidiousness in regards to the very real link between climate change and terrorism isn't "beyond belief" given his long history of AGW denialism and hate for democratic socialism (his preference being for economic policies that favor the oligarchs).

[1] ...refugee applicants are subject to the highest level of security checks of any type of traveler to the U.S. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees initially chooses which refugees to refer to the U.S. after doing its own check. U.S. officials then conduct multiple in-person interviews and verify a refugee's story with intelligence agencies and by running background checks through several government databases, including DHS and the National Counterterrorism Center. (Can Terrorists Really Infiltrate the Syrian Refugee Program? by Russell Berman. The Atlantic 11/18/2015).
[2] It's much easier for a would-be terrorist to fly to the U.S. on a tourist visa. makes little sense for an aspiring terrorist to apply to enter the United States as a refugee. Passing through the process often takes at least 18 months, and sometimes much longer. ... Overall, refugees are unlikely to be resettled at all - the UN Refugee Agency says that only about 1 percent of the world's refugees end up being taken in permanently elsewhere. Stephen Legomsky, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis and former chief counsel for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said... "No competent terrorist would choose the U.S. refugee process as a preferred strategy for gaining entry into the US". (Here's Why You Should Stop Worrying About Terrorists Entering The U.S. As Refugees by Roque Planas. HuffPo 11/18/2015).

OST #87

Monday, December 7, 2015

On The Trusting of One's Well-Being to Parasitic Transnational Megacorporations, Bought & Paid for Think Tank Fellows, & Greedy Power-Hungry CEOs

These people are deluded/brainwashed beyond comprehension. Frankly I find it astonishing that Libertarian democracy-hating wealth-worshiping stooges like Willis V Hart are so eager to turn our country over to the oligarchs wholely. One surely can not have boatload of self-esteem to live like that. And don't even get me going on the naivete. Please. PLEASE.

OST #86

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

On The Fact That (According To Mortgage Expert David Min) Willis Hart Is Full Of Shit When He Quotes Conservative Economist Edward Pinto Who Says 76% of the Subprime Loans At the Time of the Housing Crisis Were on the Books of Government Agencies

While we all know that subprime mortgage defaults caused the 2008 housing bubble financial crisis, some people are still trying to blame the government agencies that backup mortgage loans made by private sector banks. These government-is-always-the-problem types exclusively being Conservatives or Libertarians.

Willis Hart, a Libertarian blogger, is one such person.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that (According to Economist, Edward Pinto) 76% of the Subprime Loans in the U.S. at the Time of the Housing Crisis in 2008 Were on the Books of Government Agencies; Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, HUD, etc... And yet we still have partisan idiots like Krugman going around saying that the crisis wasn't at all caused by government policies. Unbelievable, huh? (11/30/2015 AT 4:03pm).

76 percent of subprime loans were on the books of government agencies when the market crashed? That's a lot, huh? Given that huge number, how could anyone argue that the government was not a major driver of the 2008 crash?

As it turns out, however, AEI economist Edward Pinto is fudging the definition of "subprime" in order to make his case that the 2008 crisis was primarily caused by government policies (of maintaining liquidity in the housing market by buying mortgages made by private sector banks).

...according to David Min, a leading... critic [of this analysis] at the Center for American Progress, as of the second quarter of 2010, the delinquency rate on all Fannie and Freddie guaranteed loans was 5.9 percent. By contrast, the national average was 9.11 percent. The Fannie and Freddie... default rate is similarly much lower than the national default rate. The... explanation for this is that many of the loans being characterized by... Pinto as "subprime" are not, in fact, true subprime mortgages. (An Inconvenient Truth by Joe Nocera. NYT 12/19/2011).

So Pinto is lumping mortgages into the "subprime" category that don't belong there, and suggesting that, because so large a percentage of "subprime" mortgages were held by government agencies, government agencies are responsible for driving the 2008 crisis. Although the liar leaves out the fact that these mortgages he incorrectly lumped in were being defaulted on at a lower rate (and they were NOT the mortages driving the crisis).

This is why David Min (whose bio at the University of Irvine CA School of Law says he "is a nationally recognized expert on financial markets regulation" whose area of expertise includes mortgages) says that "federal affordable housing policies were the primary cause of the financial crisis" argument made by the Conservative American Enterprise Institute (of which Edward Pinto is a Resident Fellow) "has been rejected by many analysts".

...most of the "subprime" mortgages [AEI Fellows including Pinto] attributes to federal affordable housing policies could not have been motivated by these policies, either because the loans were ineligible (typically because they were made to higher-income borrowers) or because the lenders were not subject to these policies (such as in the case of the non-bank lenders, which did not have any applicable federal affordable housing requirements; non-bank lenders made up 24 of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006).

[The fact is that] the housing bubble occurred during a period when Fannie and Freddie's market share dropped precipitously. ...central to [Pinto's] argument that affordable housing policies (including those advocated by Rep. Frank in 1992) caused the mortgage crisis is his claim that the federal government is responsible for 19.2 million "subprime" mortgages (with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being responsible for 12 million of those). But [this figure is arrived at] using [a] own made-up definition of "subprime", a definition that no one outside of [AEI] uses.

...the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has estimated that there were only 4.58 million subprime and other high risk loans outstanding, with very few of these attributable to the federal government. (For the Last Time, Fannie and Freddie Didn't Cause the Housing Crisis by David Min. The Atlantic 12/16/2011).

The conclusion by Min (which he refers to at the "mainstream" explanation) is that "it was unregulated securitization on Wall Street that drove the financial crisis" and NOT government agencies as Willis Hart claims with his post. Frankly I find it unbelievable that the Hartster thinks he can present these fabrications as "fact" when they aren't. His solution to getting rid of any pushback to his BS is simply to ban from his echo chamber anyone who disagrees.

BTW, in the interest of being completely honest, David Min never said that either Edward Pinto or Willis Hart are full of shit. Although I think that what he did say proves that they both are. His criticism was actuallyh aimed specifically at AEI Fellow Peter Wallison (due to Min's article being a response to an article that Wallison authored). This is an article in which Wallison writes, "my dissent [to an Atlantic article in which Barney Frank is interviewed and says F&F and other government agencies were NOT responsible for the 2008 crash is] based on the research of my AEI colleague Edward Pinto".

OST #85

Thursday, November 26, 2015

Libertarian Free Trading Buffoons On How To Turn A Huge Fortune Into An Even Larger One

Destroy American jobs via outsourcing to low-wage third-world countries. Then blame the workers whose jobs were outsourced for being unemployed. They didn't "skill up", improve their "human capital", etc. This criticism even though workers with skills have also lost their jobs. Many White collar jobs were lost when India "liberalized" their economy, which enabled the corporate plutocrats to eliminate skilled US positions (SWTD #221), for example.

But these Libertarian free trade advocating buffoons believe the fortunes of the world's plutocrats will go from being huge to even larger via the destruction of American jobs. Which they are correct about. The buffoonery is found in their short sightedness. Eventually the continual flow of jobs (blue and white collar) to low wage countries will decimate the middle class. We know this because it is already in the process of happening (America's Incredible Shrinking Middle Class).

It is due to intended stoogery (in that they actually WANT the plutocrats to grow even wealthier at the expense of everyone else) or unintended stoogery (in that these fools actually believe Libertarianism will benefit everyone) - that posts like the following are produced by indoctrinated chumps like Willis Hart.

Willis Hart: Socialist Buffoons on How to Amass a Small Fortune... Start with a large fortune and prune away at it. (6/25/2015 AT 4:11pm).

I presume the Hartster is referring to high taxation, such as in countries like Sweden. A democratic socialist nation Willis learns an incorrect lesson from. The dumb-dumb thinks that because Sweden dialed back the percentage of their GDP that is government spending, that somehow validates his Libertarian "free market" less government worldview. Further proof that Willis V. Hart is indeed a total moron? I think YES.

OST #84

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Black Men Are Killing Each Other Over Half Eaten Hershey, 3 Musketeer & Snickers Candy Bars?

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart has made this assertion on a number of occassions. Without ever providing any citations that would prove what he's saying is happening on a regular basis. Or ever.

Willis Hart: On the Removal of the Confederate Flag... So, does this (the banishing of an inanimate object) now mean that young black men are going to stop killing each other over foolishness (half-eaten Hershey bars, Air-Jordan Sneaks, a perceived dis, etc.)... (6/25/2015 AT 4:11pm).

To this claim I say WTF is Willis talking about? Perhaps he is referring to things that have actually occurred, but the way he tells it, Black people killing each other for stupid reasons is something that happens on a regular basis. I mean, he has referred to murders over half eaten candy bars (etc) more than once.

Willis Hart: On the "Black Lives Matter" Movement... Maybe it's just my crowd but I don't know a single white person who doesn't think that black lives matter just as much as Caucasian ones do. The folks who HAVEN'T gotten the message are young, black gang-bangers; Mookie, Ray Ray, Dre, Dog, etc. who continue to kill and maim each other over foolishness; half-eaten 3 Musketeer bars, a pair of Air Jordans, some big butted heifer, etc.. Those are the people who we most need to convince. (10/7/2015 AT 8:36pm).

Same claim a 3rd time, although the brand of candy bar is again different.

Willis Hart: On Black Lives Mattering... There's never been an argument from me. IN FACT, being that the black murder rate is fully 6 times that of whites (17.5 per 100,000 versus 2.6 per 100,000) with the perpetrators being 93% other black people, I'm actually quite insulted that this bullshit is being placed not just at my doorstep but the law enforcement community's, too... STOP BLOWING YOUR FUCKING BRAINS OUT (much of it over foolishness; half-eaten Snickers bars, Air Jordan sneaks, some big-butted heifer, a slight, etc.), PEOPLE. BLACK LIVES MATTER!!!!!! (11/18/2015 AT 5:07pm).

So, these gangbangers (Mookie, Ray Ray, Dre, Dog, or some other stereotypical Black man's name) all have pretty serious sweet tooths, I gather. I mean, given the fact that they're killing each other on a regular basis over (differing brands of) chocolate bars. And they're always half-eaten too (which is quite odd, no?).

Perhaps this happened once, twice, multiple times even. But I have an incredibly hard time believing this kind of thing happens on a regular basis. Frankly I find the assertion (never with any citation) offensive as well as racist. It isn't as if a White person has never killed someone for "foolishness".

Yet it's "gangbangers" (a substitution for the n-word?) who have a monopoly on "foolishness" apparently. In Willis' mind, at least. And they REALLY like candy. Is this Willis' way of infantilizing African American men? And, if so, perhaps instead of "gangbanger" he really means "boy"?

OST #83

Thursday, November 19, 2015

On The Fact That Willis Hart Considers Something A "Fact" If: A) He Reads It On A Conservative Website & B) It Confirms His Biases

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart's supposed facts (in this case) leading to a conclusion that supports his bias against "Black activists".

Willis Hart: On the Fact that a Shitload of Black Activists Are Presently Burning Up Twitter with Beefs Pertaining to the Level of Press Coverage that the Paris Terror Attacks Have Been Receiving and Are Alleging this Attention Is Somehow Taking Away Coverage from Their Grievances at the University of Missouri... So, a poop Swastika (that not one person thought to take a picture of) and some yahoo who may or may not have been affiliated with the University shouting out the n-word from a moving vehicle deserves the same level of coverage as 129 people being slaughtered (with hundreds more wounded)? Damn, huh?

P.S. Whatever else that these spoiled brats (probably a lot of the same morons who booed Bernie Sanders) have learned at the "academy", perspective surely isn't one of them. (11/18/2015 AT 4:04pm).

My reaction to reading this is that YES, it does sound rather ridiculous if true. So I did a Google search and, as it turns out, a "shitload" of Conservative websites are reporting on this "story". Fox Nooz, The Daily Mail, The Washington Times, Breitbart and The Daily Caller (the first 5 results, all of which link to Conservervative sites) all claim that upset Mizzou protestors have tweeted about the attacks in Paris taking the focus away from their issue.

Mizzou, however, disputes that these tweets came from anyone associated with the University. (This story was the 6th result displayed when I did my Google search).

False Social Media Posts Regarding Attacks in Paris (11/14/2015) Social media posts expressing dismay that the tragedy in Paris is diverting media attention from events at the University of Missouri are being made by individuals from outside the Mizzou community in an attempt to create conflict. Our hearts go out to the citizens of Paris and all those affected by the tragic events of last night. While our community has faced difficulties over the past week, we express our sincere sympathy to those who have been affected by the events in Paris and remain committed to making Mizzou stronger and more inclusive.

Also, the Columbia Missourian, "a daily morning newspaper published in Columbia MO" that looked at the accounts behind these tweets and tried to find out who these people are, found that NONE of the tweeters could be linked to Mizzou.

Fact Check: No proof tweets about Paris attacks came from MU protesters (excerpt from a 11/19/2015 article by Katherine Knott) Our finding [is that] It's true that some people did tweet their dissatisfaction with the change in coverage. However, the tweets and commenters cited by the bloggers show no evidence of a connection to MU or the Concerned Student 1950 movement. Using the hashtag #Mizzou doesn't mean those people were camping on Carnahan Quadrangle or even present on campus.

Meanwhile, leaders of the Concerned Student 1950 demonstrations and the Legion of Black Collegians have posted statements of sympathy and support for the victims of the Paris attacks, not statements of hate or anger.

While it's impossible to prove beyond a doubt that those who complained about the redirected coverage have no connection to MU, we could find no evidence allowing us to independently verify that these individuals are, in fact, "Mizzou protesters".

There you have it. This makes much more sense than thinking any Mizzou protestor would tweet something in such incredibly bad taste... tweets that would absolutely guarantee their cause would get bad press. Which was obviously the goal of the fake tweeters.

Could it be that perspective, or "the faculty of seeing all the relevant data in a meaningful relationship", is something that Willis lacks? I say yes, given the relevant data, which is [1] tweets, and ONLY tweets, supposedly tweeted by Mizzou protestors which would obviously cause people to view them as HUGE a-holes, [2] statements of sympathy and support for the victims of the Paris attacks and not statements of hate or anger from confirmed Mizzou protestors and [3] the fact that only Conservative sources are reporting this.

Given these facts, perspective tells me that these tweets are probably not genuine and are from outsiders trying to create bad press for the Mizzou protesters. Find some of the actual protesters and get them on record saying that they're upset over the Paris attacks taking the focus off their cause and then I'll believe this story.

Unless that happens I'm not buying it. Unlike the Hartster, who clearly eagerly bought what he read from the Conservative websites that reported on these tweets... because it confirms his biases.

By the way, what's up with Willis' guess that the tweeters included "a lot of the same morons who booed Bernie Sanders" when he JUST referred to Senator Sanders (along with Senator Elizabeth Warren) as "two fucking imbeciles"? Why the hell would it offend him if anyone disrespected Sanders?

Image: This open space is located South of Jesse Hall. The Mel Carnahan Quadrangle was dedicated on 9/12/2003 to a former governor of Missouri and Honors his leadership in Public Service. The Carnahan Quad has emerged as the University's most significant new open space.

OST #82

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

According To Willis Hart 90 Percent Of Women Who Claim They Were Unable To Consent To Sex (& Were Therefore Raped) Actually Consented Then Just Regretted It Later

This is yet another example of misogyny from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart IMO.

Willis Hart: On President Obama Spouting that Thoroughly Discredited Claim that 1 out of Every 5 College-Aged Women Will Ultimately Be Raped... Do they simply not have a fact-checker at the White House? Yes, folks, there is a study from the CDC (and an older one by an activist named Mary Koss) which claims what the President is claiming, but it is seriously flawed (the main flaw being that they count all episodes of drunken sex in which the woman regrets it in the morning as "rape" and all episodes in which the man lies to the woman in an effort to get her in the sack as "sexual violence"). A much more accurate number (one that is considered the gold standard) is the one which comes from the Justice Department Crime Survey; 1 in 50 (still a troubling number but not the type that produces hysteria).

Of course the $64,000 question is why in the hell did Obama use the bogus stat? Stupidity? More pandering? I'd kind of like to know. (11/16/2015 AT 4:16pm).

First of all, the CDC study (the one Willis refers to) has NOT been "thoroughly discredited" nor are it's stats "bogus". I looked into it and found that some Libertarian-types have concerns with how one of the questions was worded.

...the wording of the question measuring "incapacitated rape" (which accounted for nearly two-thirds of the CDC's estimate of rapes that occurred in the past year). Respondents were asked about sexual acts that happened when they were "drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent". This seems to imply that "unable to consent" is only one of the variables and to include situations in which a person is intoxicated - perhaps enough to have impaired judgment - but not incapacitated as the legal definition of rape requires.

A CDC spokesperson told The New Republic that "being unable to consent is key to the CDC's definition of rape". Presumably, this is conveyed by the introduction to the question about alcohol and drug-enabled rape: "Sometimes sex happens when a person is unable to consent to it or stop it from happening because they were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out from alcohol, drugs, or medications". However, in a telephone survey, some people may focus only on the question itself and let the introduction slide by.

Moreover, the introductory message ends with an advisory that may create more confusion: "Please remember that even if someone uses alcohol or drugs, what happens to them is not their fault". Obviously, the intended point is that even if you got drunk, you're not to blame for being raped. But this vaguely phrased reminder could also be taken to mean that it's not your fault if you do something stupid while drunk or on drugs. At no point are respondents given any instructions that could result in fewer reports of alleged victimization: for instance, that they should not include instances in which they had voluntary sex while drunk but not incapacitated. (The CDC's Rape Numbers Are Misleading by Cathy Young, contributing editor for Reason Magazine. Time 9/17/2014).

Note the three words in RED. "May" (twice) and "could". Is this how the study was "thoroughly discredited"? By guessing how someone may or could interpret a question based on the wording? Obviously this is an absurd conclusion to reach. I say the wording might produce some false positives, but 90 freaking percent?

That's what the false positive rate would have to be if you say 1 in 5 is wrong and 1 in 50 is right. 1 in 5 would be the same as 20 out of 100, while 1 in 50 would be the same as 2 out of 100. Which would mean Willis is saying 18 out of 20 women are saying they were raped when they actually were drunk when they consented to sex (but later regretted it).

Which is a figure I'm not buying. The way the question is worded might produce some false positives, but no freaking way would it result in a 90 percent false positive rate. Yet this is EXACTLY what the Harster concludes.

That Justice Department Crime Survey, by the way refers to "forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force". But it doesn't say anything about no force being needed because the victim is drunk (or under the influence of drugs). Taking advantage of someone while they're too incapacitated to say NO is still rape in my book. Which explains why the CDC got higher numbers (I'm guessing).

The stats were obviously good enough for the president, and YES I think he has fact checkers, and NO I do not think he quoted the CDC stat due to either "stupidity" or "pandering". I'd say he used it because he felt the CDC stats were (questioning of question wording not withstanding) more accurate than the Justice Department Crime Survey figures... and I'm inclined to agree.

I'm certainly NOT inclined to believe that 90 percent of women who responded to the CDC survey misunderstood the question and answered that that they were unable to consent when they actually did consent (did "something stupid while drunk or on drugs"). Actually, there is no f*cking way I believe that. I am, however, inclined to believe the Harster buys that this is the case due to his (previously demonstrated) misogyny.

OST #81

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Willis Hart Extreme Hypocrisy Re Him Daring Someone To Call Black Conservatives "Uncle Toms" To Their Faces While He Refers To Black Liberals As "Minstrels"

Another example of screaming hypocrisy from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in which he DARES (Progressives, presumably) to refer to two specific Black Conservatives (people I've never heard of) using a derogatory term.

On Angry Black Conservatives and Youtube Sensations, David Carroll and the Honorable Akwesi 100... I dare anybody to call these two, an "Uncle Tom", TO THEIR FACES (you know, as opposed to sitting anonymously behind some computer screen). (11/9/2015 AT 4:22pm).

I dare you, Willis, to walk up to each of the Black Progressives you've called "Minstrels" (from behind your computer screen) and call them minstrels TO THEIR FACES. I also dare you (in regards to the the Black Progressives you've referred to as "demagogues" from behind your computer screen) to use this term when in their presence... you fu*king hypocrite!

The Black "Minstrels" being Jesse Jackson, Touré Neblett, Marc Lamont Hill, Tariq Nasheed and Al Sharpton (who he also wanted to urinate on), and the Black demagogues being Charles Blow, Melissa Harris-Perry, and Marc Lamont Hill. (Yes, some of these people are on both lists).

The takeaway here is that the screaming hypocrite Willis Hart thinks it's just fine for him to refer to African American Progressives as minstrels and demagogues. That's just him telling it like it is, I guess. But if a Liberal refers to a Black Conservative as an "Uncle Tom"? Well, that's completely unacceptable.

Not that I would ever do this, mind you. Mostly because I have absolutely no idea who either of these creators of videos on YouTube are. Or care who they are. I looked them up and found their videos. Problem is, aside from me not giving a crap, the videos I found are all too long. My high speed satellite internet connection has a data cap that requires I be careful lest I go over it.

I did watch a part of one, but stopped it after the dude spoke for several minutes about his creating videos and videos he would create in the future (meta stuff) and wasn't getting to what he actually was going to say. I said "enough of this" and navigated away. I'll take Willis' word for it that these are two Black dudes who are Conservative. To which I say, SO WHAT? Yes, there are Black Conservatives... even though the majority of African Americans vote Democratic, SOME are Conservative Republicans.

I don't understand why they would be, but it is THEIR RIGHT to believe whatever the hell they want. I'm not going to use any (racially tinged) pejoratives to describe them. That is what the demagoguing hypocrite blogger Willis V. Hart does!

BTW, if someone were to call these two Black Conservatives "Uncle Tom" to their faces, what does he think would happen? That they'd get punched? Because Conservatives like the Harster (someone who claims he's anti-war) are actually inclined to resort to acts of physical violence to settle disputes?

Or does Willis think these two Conservative men would immediately get violent because they're Black? Because this is how the racially biased Hartster views Black people? That they're all violent animals who want to kill/assault White men and rape White women?

When they aren't killing each other, that is. In Willis' imagination African Americans (when they aren't perpertrating violent acts against Whitey) are either killing and maiming each other over "over foolishness [such as] half-eaten 3 Musketeer bars, a pair of Air Jordans, some big butted heifer, etc" or they [the mothers] are murdering their children (stuffing their dead bodies in freezers or throwing them off balconies).

OST #80

Saturday, October 31, 2015

Willis Hart Cognitive Dissonance Re Fake Benghazi Scandal Manufactured By Congressional Republicans To Harm HRC Prez Campaign

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values (as per the Wikipedia page).

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart exhibits STRONG indications that he is suffering from cognitive dissonance with his latest post on the fake Benghazi "scandal" manufactured by Congressional Republicans to harm Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency.

That the scandal is completely fake is something we know due to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy's admission to Fox Nooz's Sean Hannity.

Kevin McCarthy on Sean Hannity's Fox News program: Everybody thought that Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she is untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen. (Kevin McCarthy's radical honesty: Benghazi was about hurting Hillary by Robin Abcarian. LA Times 10/2/2015).

Despite this admission from the Bakersfield CA Representative, which has been viewed by some (rational people who recgonize the fact McCarthy accidently told the truth) "as an admission that the investigation was a partisan political undertaking rather than a substantive inquiry", Willis is STILL convinced that there is a real scandal here!

Willis Hart: 60 Minutes Report on Benghazi - IT'S NOT a "Fake Scandal" After All!!! Yeah, I strongly suspect that Ms. Logan is going to get slimed over this one (and probably has already - can you say, David Brock?). (10/30/2015 AT 5:28pm).

Willis' "proof" that Benghazi "is not a fake scandal after all" is a 15 minute Youtube video of the 60 minutes report that was uploaded to YouTube on 9/30/2014. According to the uploader, "someone at CBS News is bound to lose their job over this".

I think the uploader is implying someone will lose their job because the Obama Administration won't like the "truth" behind what "really" happened at Benghazi being revealed. Apparently the uploader is suffering from the same cognitive dissonance, as the 60 minutes story was discredited shortly after it aired.

What follows is an excerpt from the transcript of an appearance by Lara Logan on CBS This Morning (see video at the bottom of this post).

NORAH O'DONNELL: 60 Minutes has learned of new information that undercuts its Oct. 27 account of an ex-security officer who called himself Morgan Jones. His real name is Dylan Davies, and he recounted to Lara Logan, in great detail, what he claimed were his actions on the night of the attack on the Benghazi compound. Lara joins us this morning. Lara, good morning. What can you tell us?

LARA LOGAN: The most important thing to every person at 60 Minutes is the truth, and today the truth is that we made a mistake. did this happen? Well, Dylan Davies worked for the State Department in Libya, was the manager of the local guard force at the Benghazi Special Mission compound. He described for us his actions the night of the attack, saying he had entered the compound and had a confrontation with one of the attackers, and that he had seen the body of Ambassador Chris Stevens in a local hospital.

...after our report aired, questions were raised about whether his account was real, after an incident report surfaced that told a different story about what he'd done that night. He denied that report and said that he told the FBI the same story he told us. But what we now know is that he told the FBI a different story from what he told us. That's when we realized that we no longer had confidence in our source, and that we were wrong to put him on air, and we apologize to our viewers. (60 Minutes apolotizes for Benghazi report. CBS News 11/8/2013).

Lara Logan's report aired on 10/27/2013, she issued an apology on 11/8/2013 (saying "we were wrong"), and the uploader placed his video on YouTube on 9/30/2014... approximately 11 months after it was discredited. Not quite as bad as Willis, however, who links to the discredited 60 Minutes Report almost 2 years after it was retracted!

In regards to this Dylan Davies fellow, he is a British military contractor who was the source upon which the entire Lara Logan report was premised. He also admits he lied. Although he says he lied to his supervisors with his incident report and that what he told Lara Logan is what REALLY happened.

On October 27, CBS' 60 Minutes featured... Dylan Davies [AKA Morgan Jones], a supposed "eyewitness" of the September 2012 attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities, who claimed that during the attack he scaled a wall of the compound, personally struck a terrorist in the face with his rifle butt, and later went to the Benghazi hospital to see Ambassador Chris Stevens' body.

The story he told CBS wildly diverged from the account he gave his superiors in an incident report that was obtained by The Washington Post. According to the Post, Davies had previously filed a report with his security contractor employer saying that he "could not get anywhere near" the compound the night of the attack.

According to The Daily Beast, Davies explained that he had lied to his supervisor at the security contracting company Blue Mountain Group, "because he did not want his supervisor to know he had disobeyed his orders". (CBS "Eyewitness" Admits He Lied About Benghazi Attack While Bashing Critics by Hannah Groch-Begley. Media Matters 11/3/2013).

You buy this? Media Matters doesn't, noting that when he falsified his incident report he succeeded in "undermining his credibility and calling into question his various accounts of the attack".

So, why did Davies change his story? Media Matters reveals the possible motivation.

Fox News revealed they had previously interviewed Davies as well, but ceased after he demanded money, a charge that Davies denied. Foreign Policy also reported that Davies' memoir was published by "Threshold Editions, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, which is a part of CBS Corporation, which owns 60 Minutes - a fact not disclosed in the 60 Minutes story.

It was a cash grab, in other words. This according to Fox Nooz! Why the hell would Fox say Davies demanded money if he did not? I mean, using Benghazi to attack the administration and Hillary Clinton (in order to damage her presidential campaign) is, as we all know, a subject they are obsessed with (lying to their viewers about). (Fox's Benghazi Obsession By The Numbers... Network Aired 1,098 Evening Segments In First 20 Months After Attacks).

By the way, David Brock founded Media Matters, so Willis is correct in regards to his involvement in debunking this fake scandal... but so too was Lara Logan (with her retraction of her original reporting). Does Willis think she "slimed" herself? I doubt it, as it appears that Willis is obliviously unaware that Lara Logan's 60 Minutes story was discredited and retracted over two years ago. What a dope!

By the way, in regards to the retracted/discredited 60 Minutes report, it "led CBS News to request that Logan and her producer, Max McLellan, take a leave of absence". Also, in regards to the book (The Embassy House) that Dylan Davies wrote, it "was published two days after the 60 Minutes report, by Threshold Editions, part of the Simon and Schuster unit of CBS [but] was pulled from shelves once 60 Minutes issued its correction". (Source).

But it looks like the Hartster's cognitive dissonance prevents him from being aware of these events. LOL!

Video: Lara Logan apologizes for her Benghazi reporting. "We made a mistake", she says.

Supporting Document
[DSD #21] The "Small l Libertarian" Who Suffers From A Bad Case Of (Hillary) Clinton Derangement Syndrome (A catalog of MANY commentaries by WTNPH in which he criticizes HRC, including in regards to the fake Benghazi scamdal).

OST #79

Thursday, October 29, 2015

On Willis Hart's Uproariously Ludicrous Notion That Anyone Says The Earth's Climate Is Safe But Humans Make It Much More Dangerous

This recent commentary from the climate-change-denying Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is proof that instead of "Take No Prisoners" his tagline should instead be "I Love Strawmen".

Willis Hart: On the Uproariously Ludicrous Notion that the Earth's Climate is Safe and that Humans Make it Much More Dangerous... I'm sorry but anyone with even a scintilla of gray-matter (a scarce resource in the White House and on Capitol Hill) knows that the exact opposite is true and that the data bears it out; the fact that climate related deaths have plummeted by over 95% during the past century, the fact that rich countries survive extreme weather events (which even the IPCC says HAVEN'T gotten worse or more prevalent as the result of CO2 increases) much better than developing countries do, etc. (not that those who are hard-wired into thinking that humans/human progress are evil and that life on the farm and dying at 40 were the cat's meow can ever be convinced, mind you). And it's just such damned common sense, for Christ. (10/28/2015 AT 5:28pm).

Everything Willis says regarding the data bearing out the fact that climate-related deaths have gone down in "rich countries" sounds accurate to me (without looking anything up), and I seriously doubt anyone would dispute these facts. (The text in purple).

Everything else Willis writes is total bullshit. The notion he finds "uproarious" is NOT a notion! There is, therefore, absolutely no reason for him to be "sorry". Nobody in the White House or on Capitol Hill has ever said that the earth's climate is safe and that humans make it much more dangerous - via anthropogenic, or human influenced, global warming (AGW).

What those who acknowledge the fact that empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming exists (due to the research of the 97 percent of climate experts who agree it's real) are saying is that AGW is making severe weather events MORE dangerous (not that they were SAFE and now they aren't due to AGW).

Skeptical Science: Whenever there is an extreme weather event, such as a flood or drought, people ask whether that event was caused by global warming. Unfortunately, there is no straightforward answer to this question. Weather is highly variable and extreme weather events have always happened. Detecting trends takes time... An increase in extreme weather is expected with global warming because rising temperatures affect weather parameters in several ways. Changes in the frequency of extreme events coinciding with global warming have already been observed, and there is increasing evidence that some of these changes are caused by the impacts of human activities on the climate. (Is extreme weather caused by global warming?).

Also false is Willis' claim that the IPCC says severe weather events have not gotten worse or more prevalent as the result of CO2 increases. ...the "worsening-storms scenario" has not... been debunked. ...[While] the IPCC did find that there is "low confidence" regarding "increases in tropical cyclone activity" over the past 100 years... evidence is stronger regarding increases in the strongest storms in certain regions. According to the... IPCC report, there is evidence for a "virtually certain" — which means between 99 percent and 100 percent probability — "increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the 1970s" in the North Atlantic basin. (The Extreme Weather-Warming Connection).

Another ludicrous strawman is Willis' claim that the climate change scientists (and those listening to them) view human progress as EVIL. He's referring to people who believe in SCIENCE and think we have PROGRESSED to the point where we can start aggressively moving away from dirty fossil-fuel-based energy toward cleaner renewable green energy. This is the next stage of humanity's progress and NOT a step backward.

The fact is that it's Willis Hart who wants us to stay stagnant and not move forward! Due to his love for the dirty energy oligarchs, I'm guessing. There is a lot of money to be made continuing down the path to making our planet more inhospitable for humans by conducting business as usual and continuing to spew CO2 into the atmosphere.

Scientific America, in a 10/26/2015 article, reveals that "Exxon knew about climate change almost 40 years ago [but] spent decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoted climate misinformation". Why? To protect their profits, of course.

And, speaking of evil, according to environmentalist Bill McKibben, "Exxon Mobil's decision to hide research that confirmed fossil fuels' role in global warming for decades amounts to unparalleled evil".

This is a statement I find myself agreeing with. I mean, the fact that they not only covered up what their own scientists were finding, but that they also funded "think tanks" that deliberately pumped out misinformation? IMO this crosses a line from self-preservation into evil territory. And Willis, with his continual strawmanning on this issue, aligns himself with this evil.

OK, so that does it in regards to my debunking of the Hart's AGW strawmen. There is, however, one last bit of misinformation from Willis that I'd like to refute. Which would be his claim regarding an average life span of 40 (prior to technological innovations of the 20th century).

According Livescience, "human lifespans [have been] nearly constant for 2,000 years".

Discussions about life expectancy often involve how it has improved over time. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, life expectancy for men in 1907 was 45.6 years; by 1957 it rose to 66.4; in 2007 it reached 75.5. Unlike the most recent increase in life expectancy (which was attributable largely to a decline in half of the leading causes of death including heart disease, homicide, and influenza), the increase in life expectancy between 1907 and 2007 was largely due to a decreasing infant mortality rate, which was 9.99 percent in 1907; 2.63 percent in 1957; and 0.68 percent in 2007.

But the inclusion of infant mortality rates in calculating life expectancy creates the mistaken impression that earlier generations died at a young age; Americans were not dying en masse at the age of 46 in 1907. The fact is that the maximum human lifespan — a concept often confused with "life expectancy" — has remained more or less the same for thousands of years. The idea that our ancestors routinely died young (say, at age 40) has no basis in scientific fact.

Of course, infant mortality is only one of many factors that influence life expectancy, including medicine, crime, and workplace safety. But when it is calculated in, it often creates confusion and myths.

When Socrates died at the age of 70 around 399 B.C., he did not die of old age but instead by execution. It is ironic that ancient Greeks lived into their 70s and older, while more than 2,000 years later modern Americans aren't living much longer. (article by Benjamin Radford, Live Science Contributor. 8/21/2009).

That the higher infant mortality rates of the past lowered "average life expectancy" is just such damned common sense, for Christ! Yet Willis buys into the myth that people were dropping dead at 40. That's in addition to his ludicrous notion that the climate change scientists (and those who trust that they aren't liars) are "warmists" or "alarmists".

So, while the Hartster may believe his climate change stoogery in service of the Big Oil oligarchs (which, as of 2010, was killing 5 million people a year) is the cat's meow, rational people (those of us who believe in science and realize that dirty fossil fuel energy should be left in the past) strongly disagree. And we might laugh uproariously at how absurd his denialism is (he's actually claimed that those on the side of science are "losing [the] argument and... losing it... badly")... if this kind of anti-science thinking wasn't so dangerous.

OST #78

Friday, October 23, 2015

Racist Liar Willis Hart Places Offensive Word "Coon" In Black Mouths, Even Though No Black Person Would Use It In The Context He Says They're Using It In

Referring to prominent Black men he doesn't like (Black men whose professions place them in the public eye) as "minstrels" is something the Libertarial blogger Willis Hart has been doing for awhile. Now he's begun using the slur "coon", or "cooning". Although he SAYS it's Black people who are using this slur against other Blacks.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that in Certain Segments of the Black Community, Helping Your Children with Their Homework is Considered "Cooning"/"Acting White"... That's a huge problem, folks (and not one that is likely to be ameliorated by a 127th federal welfare/giveaway program). (10/20/2015 AT 4:40pm.

According to Willis, we should absolutely not be helping poor African Americans with a "127th federal welfare/giveaway program" because they're hurting themselves by telling their children education is bad. Problem is, Willis' claim is largely false.

The "Acting White" Myth: Karolyn Tyson, a sociologist at the University of NC at Chapel Hill, and William Darity Jr, an economist at Duke and U.N.C., coordinated an 18-month ethnographic study at 11 schools in North Carolina. What they found was that black students basically have the same attitudes about achievement as their white counterparts do: they want to succeed, understand that doing well in school has important consequences in later life and feel better about themselves the better they do. (12/12/2004 NYT article by Paul Tough).

More often it is the case, according to the study, that it is the teachers who will use this as an excuse to explain why Black students aren't doing as well as White students. Although some underperforming African American students may use it to describe their more successful peers. This is akin to "jocks" making fun of "nerds".

That Willis claims the problem is "huge" when it isn't is further proof of the dude's racist proclivities, IMO. I mean, Willis frequently bashes Black people on his blog. The commentary cited above being just one example.

Here is another.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that in Some Segments of the Pro-Black Community Folks Like Dr. Carson Are Seen as Coons but Others Who Are Far More Buffoonish in Their Behavior Such as Nicki Minaj (or Worse Yet Those Rioters and Looters in Baltimore Who Burnt Down the Senior Center, that CVS, etc.) Are Given a Pass and Even Praised... That's big problem, folks, a real big problem. The fact that Ben Carson, say what you want about his politics, is an acclaimed pediatric neurosurgeon and exactly the type of person that young black people SHOULD be emulating and not some twerking, talentless, offensive bimbo... (10/6/2015 AT 10:08pm).

To this assertion I say "bullshit". Educated Black folks, or Black individuals who are working seriously on their education are not referred to as "coons" by "some segments of the pro-Black community".

...among black people, it ["coon"] has a completely different... meaning. When a white person calls someone a "coon", they are slurring all black people... In the historical racist context of the USA, the coon was/is portrayed as a lazy, easily frightened, chronically idle, inarticulate, buffoon whose sole purpose in life is too amuse those in the dominant society. The coon was/is labeled as a childish adult; albeit a good-for-little adult. ... within the black community... "Coonery" [applies when] poor Blacks embarrass bourgeoisie Blacks. (Ivy League Professor Didn't Actually Call Ben Carson "Coon of the Year" by Tommy Christopher. Mediaite 10/7/2015).

The word, when used within the Black community (a Black person referring to another Black person) has the EXACT OPPOSITE meaning than the one Willis says it does. An unintelligent Black person might be a "coon" and NOT an intelligent Black person. So what Willis claims (in both of his posts) is obviously false. I don't know if Willis got his info from some Conservative website (or if he just made it up), but it is baloney.

No Black parents are saying that helping your children with their homework is "cooning". Nobody within the "pro-Black community" thinks that Ben Carson is a "coon" because he is an acclaimed pediatric neurosurgeon.

Both of these assertions are flat-out bullplop, as well as examples of the Hartster's racism. In that he's victim-blaming (something Conservatives like Willis excel at) as well as stuffing a slur (coon/cooning) into the mouths of Black people (who he has insulting other Blacks) which they would never use in that context.

As for some "Ivy League Professor" supposedly calling Ben Carson a "Coon" (referred to in the title of the Mediaite story I quote above)... Yes, the professor, Anthea Butler, is an African American, and, yes, she did tweet a sentence containing the word "coon" as well as Ben Carson's name.

But she was not calling Ben Carson a "coon". The tweet in question, "If only there was a coon of the year award", was in response to Carson saying he would be OK with NASCAR fans flying the Confederate flag on private property. The tweet was wondering how he'd react if there was a "coon of the year" award (held on private property, presumably). Would Carson say that was OK too?

I bring this up because this MIGHT be the incident Willis was referring to. The Black professor might be a member of the "segment" of the "Pro-Black Community" which Willis was referring to. The Conservative media reportedly feigned outrage in regards to this tweet, spinning it in a manner that makes me think that this incident was quite likely what Willis is referring to. But it never happened, as I already pointed out.

So, in addition to being quite racially biased, What this shows, I think, is that Willis consumes a lot of Conservative media and readily buys into whatever BS Nooz they spin. Perhaps because he is a "strident right wing leaning mouthpiece" as a fellow Libertarian-voting blogger recently described him?

Yeah, I think there is a lot of truth to this statement. Especially in regards to Hart's WND-ish bashing of the Black community. For example, the dude actually cites Colin Flaherty's "disturbing volume", White Girl Bleed a Lot in one of his commentaries. How this book plays to the fears of White racists isn't what finds distrubing, BTW. The book is "disturbing", IMO, because of how good a job it does in reinforcing his anti-Black bigotry.

OST #77

Saturday, October 17, 2015

On Willis Hart's Racist Hate For The "Black Lives Matter" Movement Being So Intense He Uses (& Caps) The F Word To Denounce It

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is a racially biased individual who often speaks about how Black people are quite violent, lazy and dumb. Dumb, because they they have been duped into voting Democratic because they want free stuff.

It is therefore no surprise that Willis dislikes the Black Lives Matter movement.

Willis Hart: On the "Black Lives Matter" Movement... Maybe it's just my crowd but I don't know a single white person who doesn't think that black lives matter just as much as Caucasian ones do. The folks who HAVEN'T gotten the message are young, black gang-bangers; Mookie, Ray Ray, Dre, Dog, etc. who continue to kill and maim each other over foolishness; half-eaten 3 Musketeer bars, a pair of Air Jordans, some big butted heifer, etc.. Those are the people who we most need to convince. (10/7/2015 AT 8:36pm).

See what Willis is doing here? It isn't the fault of White people that a Black person is 300 percent more likely to be killed by a police officer than a White person. In the world of oblivious Whites like Willis institutional racism does not exist, racism is a minor issue (which amounts to nothing more than an anecdote) and members of the Black Lives Matter movement are bellyachers who whine about problems they're creating themselves.

This is the typical Conservative "solution" when confronted with this kind of problem - first deny it exists, then blame the victims for the harms visited upon them by their victimizers. In this instance, the "problem" in the eyes of White men like Willis isn't racism or poverty, but the fact that these things existing make people like Willis uncomfortable. Not just uncomfortable, but angry that the actual solution might involve them giving up some of their White privilege.

I mean, God forbid, we increase the minimum wage to a living wage and pay poor people (including Blacks/especially Black male youths) decent wages. This is why Willis frequently advocates for abolishing the minimum wage. In the minds of Libertarian racists like Willis, the labor of Black people is worth less than that of White people. Some people simply don't deserve to earn a wage they can live on.

Of course he frames it as "cruel" because it "freezes out of the job force those with the fewest skills". But that is just a transparent excuse to pay people super low wages. Specifically young Black males. What I think he really means is that it's "cruel" to force employers to pay fair wages.

Willis' racism explains why, when during the 10/13/2015 Democratic presidential debate, a question was posed concerning "Black Lives Matter" versus "All Lives Matter" and a majority of the candidate answered "Black Lives Matter", Willis got really PO'd.

Willis Hart: On Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, and Lincoln Chafee Not Having the Courage to Say that ALL FUCKING LIVES MATTER!!... The Democratic party of Ed Koch, John F. Kennedy, [and others] - What happened to it, folks? I mean, I understand that the Republicans have gone a little batty, too, but for those Democrats (save for Jim Webb) to have reduced themselves to that level of pandering was sad, nauseating, and disturbing. Flat out. (10/15/2015 AT 10:37pm).

According to a 10/13/2015 HuffPo article, "the future Democratic presidential nominee thinks Black Lives Matter... unless it's Jim Webb". Yeah, all the candidates said Black Lives Matter, except Webb, who said "every life in this country matters".

OK, so while I think it absolutely is true that "all lives matter", this answer misses the point of the slogan... which is to point out that Black lives matter as much as White lives. Or that they should, but that society obviously does not acknowledge this. To say "all lives matter" is to dismiss the reality of Black lives not mattering as much as White lives. Which, as I already pointed out, is exactly what Willis does. There is no problem, only "bellyaching" (i.e. victim blaming).

But the Democratic potus hopefuls didn't do this, which is why I applaud their courage... excepting Jim Webb, who is a former Republican (so it makes sense that Willis supports him). It is NOT "pandering" to acknowledge we've got a problem in this country of Black lives obviously not mattering as much as White lives.

Yeah, Willis is in complete denial regarding this problem, due to his "crowd" being a bunch of oblivious White people. But the problem DOES exist. The problem being the 300 percent greater likelihood for a Black person to be killed by a police officer, as well as the high incarceration rate for minor drug crimes.

A denial of reality that easily rises to the level of being racist, IMO. I mean, the Hartster is CLEARLY a part of the problem with his reality denying rhetoric. Rhetoric (in this case including an ugly profanity aimed at the Democrats who gave the correct answer) that I find sad, nauseating, and flat out disturbing.

See Also: A Self Described Moderate Weblog. Blogger rAtional nAtion comments on the post by Willis in which he angrily chastizes the Democratic potus hopefuls for not having the "courage" to say "all f*cking lives matter"... and concludes that Mr. Hart "has morphed from moderate and reasonable to a strident right wing leaning mouthpiece".

OST #76

Friday, October 16, 2015

Gullible Wealth Worshipping Stooge Willis Hart Buys WSJ Lies Re Bernie Sanders' Invest In America Strategy

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is a wealth-worshipping stooge who believes in keeping taxes low on rich people and corporations and is strongly opposed to government investments that will grow our economy and pay big dividends.

This explains why he hates Bernie Sanders so much. Bernie, as a Democratic Socialist, knows that investing in America will pay off big time, in that it will result in prosperity for all, instead of just the incredibly wealthy individuals at the top that (the atheist) Hartster worships as if they were gods.

This is why, when one of his blog's few approved commenters passed on some lies from the Wall Street Journal concerning the cost of the investments Bernie Sanders is championing, Willis agreed with those lies... and slammed Bernie with a bogus insult.

The exchange between Shackelford and Hart as follows.

Rusty Shackelford: The WSJ did a story two weeks ago breaking down the cost of Sanders wish list. The cost would be 18 trillion dollars over ten years. (10/14/2015 AT 6:01pm).

Willis Hart: Computation obviously isn't the dude's strong suit. (10/15/2015 AT 3:57pm).

Actually, Willis, intellectually honesty is not YOUR strong suit, as the WSJ lied about the cost of the investments Bernie Sanders would push as president.

...while Sanders does want to spend significant amounts of money, almost all of it is on things we're already paying for; he just wants to change how we pay for them. In some ways it's by spreading out a cost currently borne by a limited number of people to all taxpayers. His plan for free public college would do this: right now, it's paid for by students and their families, while under Sanders' plan we'd all pay for it in the same way we all pay for parks or the military or food safety. ...the bulk of what Sanders wants to do is in the first category: to have us pay through taxes for things we're already paying for in other ways. (No, Bernie Sanders is not going to bankrupt America to the tune of $18 trillion by Paul Waldman. The Washington Post, 9/15/2015).

In other words the 18 trillion the WSJ deceptively portrays as new spending is actually money we are ALREADY spending. Bernie simply wants to change HOW we spend it. Instead of individuals spending the money (as they do now), government would spend it. But the lying author of the WSJ article does mention this AT ALL in her hit-piece on Senator Sanders.

Instead the article plays up the "price tag", referring to "new spending", "new taxes" and how "centrist" Democrats think this is a bad idea.

"We are not a country that has limitless resources. You need to tamp on the brakes somewhere, but he doesn't", said Jim Kessler, senior vice president for policy at the Democratic think tank Third Way. (Price Tag of Bernie Sanders’s Proposals: $18 Trillion by Laura Meckler. WSJ 9/14/2015).

"Limitless resources"? WTF is this dumbass talking about? As I already noted, this is money we are ALREADY spending. Some people (the poorest among us) aren't spending it, of course... and they'd be covered under any social program a Sanders' administration was able to put into place. THAT must be what Jim Kessler objects to... covering poor people at the expense of wealthy people. Both wealthy individuals who would pay more in taxes and wealthy corporations... specifically health care insurance corporations, who would be cut out of their massive profits gained via denying coverage and gouging customers (the horror!).

And that too would be my guess as to why Sanders' bid for the White House offends the wealth-worshipping stooge Willis so much (dude's a frigging socialist, for Christ sakes!).

Yes, under a Sanders' administration everyone would pay slightly higher taxes, with the rates for wealthy likely going up to the pre-Reagan rates, which would be an extraordinarily good thing, as high taxes on the wealthy act as an economic stabilizer, as Lefty Talker Thom Hartmann points out in his book Rebooting the American Dream.

High top marginal tax rates - generally well above 60 percent - on rich people actually stabilize the economy, prevent economic bubbles from forming, prevent the subsequent economic crashes, and lead to steady and sustained economic growth as well as steady and sustained wage growth for working people (Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts by Thom Hartmann. Truthout).

Low taxes on the wealthy have the opposite effect. Tax cuts, such as those instituted under preznit gwb, lead to bubbles and economic destabilization. That, however, is another topic (read the Thom Hartmann article for the full argument).

My point with this post is that that the WSJ lied... and Willis, as a libertarian stooge, claims that Sanders is bad at math. However, the opposite is obviously the case. You can't take spending that is already occurring, change how we spend it, and call it "new" spending. No wait, if you're a dishonest surface-thinking twit like Willis Hart, you can.

OST #75

Saturday, October 10, 2015

On What Frederick Douglass & Booker T. Washington Would Think (If These Guys Were Around Today) About Race Baiting Demagoguing Bloggers Like Willis Hart

Another offensive commentary by the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in which he refers to Black men as "minstrels".

Willis Hart: On What Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington Would Think (if These Guys Were Around Today) About Minstrels Like Toure' and Mark LaMont Hill Belly-Aching About Things Such as "Micro-Aggressions"... My suspicion is that they'd probably either vomit or face-plant 'em. (10/10/2015 AT 9:06am).

Honestly, I'm not sure how Frederick Douglass or Booker T. Washington would react. I do know that Conservatives like to quote these two gentlemen. Specifically the quote by Washington in which he refers to "another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public".

Conservatives LOVE that quote, as it ties in nicely with their delight in labeling Black leaders like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson "race hustlers". Why Willis does not use that term instead of "minstrel" is a bit puzzling.

In any case, I do believe that both Douglas and Washington would be at least a little perplexed that, so many generations later, racism is still alive and well. And then perhaps they'd vomit... as a result of a racist White guy (thinking he isn't racist) invoking their names to bash successful Black men - while using the offensive term "minstrel".

Something the race baiting Willis apparently believes he is clever for coming up with, given that he's done it on numerous occasions. As for his rejection of the term "microaggression" and labeling it "bellyaching", this (I believe) is further proof of Willis' racism.

According to Wikipedia microaggression "is a term which some use to refer to unintended discrimination. Psychiatrist and Harvard University professor Chester M. Pierce coined the word microaggression in 1970 to describe insults and dismissals he said he had regularly witnessed non-black Americans inflict on African Americans".

Sounds a totally imaginary thing that nobody has done ever, right? No, I think this is a real thing. However, as everyone knows, identifying a problem so something can be done about it is a bad idea. Addressing problems is best done by ignoring them and hoping they go away.

Anyway, as far as microaggressions go, if you're a typical self-centered Conservative or Libertarian who views selfishness as a "virtue", you surely don't give a shit if your words offend other people. That's "political correctness" and is one of society's biggest problems. That's how the Trumps of the world view the issue, at least. In their minds they have the right to be insensitive bigots and it's other people's problem if they get offended.

Which, I'm convinced, explains the existence of people like Willis. In fact, it appears to me that Willis takes pride in being a racially insensitive jackass. Something that (IMO) absolutely qualifies him as a member of the filthy scum of White society.

Black men Willis has referred to as "minstrels" in the past include Tariq Nasheed, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Seems to me that Willis really dislikes it when successful Black men (including leaders in the Black community) stand up and speak out against racism. I wonder why? And, yes, that is a rhetorical question. But I'm stating my own opinion here. I'm not hiding behind nor "suspecting" what Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington might say (or how they might react), unlike the Hartster.

Frederick Douglas, btw, said "the ballot is the only safety". So I think, given the fact that the Republican party of today utilizes the strategy of disenfranchising Black voters in order to win elections, this is something that might cause Douglass and Washington to vomit. As opposed to vomiting in response to successful Black men like Touré Neblett and Marc LaMont Hill "bellyaching" about microaggressions.

OST #74