Sunday, May 31, 2015

Willis Hart Misogyny Re Female Pay Discrimination (An Issue The Obama Admin Took Up With The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act)

In regards to gender pay discrimination, blogger Willis Hart (WTNPH), of course, buys the discredited Rightist meme that it does not happen. There is no pay disparity according to these people (many whom are misogynists). And most women shouldn't make the same as men (for doing the same work) anyway. Because some choose to have babies and stuff.

Willis Hart: On Patricia Arquette's Oscar-Winning Speech in Which She Dusted Off that Thoroughly Discredited Meme About Gender Pay Inequality... How many times do we have to deal with this shit? [blah, blah, blah, Libertarian BS that goes on for quite some time.] [This is] NOT because of anti-female discrimination... Please, I'm begging you, can we finally put this sucker to bed? (5/27/2015 AT 8:13pm).

"Dusted off"? This argument REALLY does not need any dusting off, as the present Presidential Administration views its action on this issue as one of it's accomplishments. Apparently Willis has forgotten all about Lilly Ledbetter.

In 1979 Lilly Ledbetter, the plaintiff, began work at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in its Gadsden, Alabama location, a union plant. She started with the same pay as male employees, but by retirement, she was earning $3,727 per month compared to 15 men who earned from $4,286 per month (lowest paid man) to $5,236 per month (highest paid man). (Wikipedia/Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co).

In response to the Supreme Court dismissing the case because the statute of limitations had passed (not because she hadn't been discriminated against), the Obama administration urged Congress to amend the law, which they did when passed the passed (and president Obama signed) The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. The act is a federal statute in the United States that amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

So there is an example right there of the discrimination occurring and Congress and the White House agreeing that women should be able to sue for this kind of discrimination (even if they don't find out about it until later).

But aside from the Lilly Ledbetter case, the Obama White House has more to say about female pay disparity discrimination.

The White House (under the Obama administration): Despite passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which requires that men and women in the same workplace be given equal pay for equal work, the "gender gap" in pay persists. Full-time women workers' earnings are only about 77 percent of their male counterparts' earnings. The pay gap is even greater for African-American and Latina women, with African-American women earning 64 cents and Latina women earning 56 cents for every dollar earned by a Caucasian man. Decades of research shows that no matter how you evaluate the data, there remains a pay
gap...

...even after factoring in the kind of work people do, or qualifications such as education and experience — and there is good evidence that discrimination contributes to the persistent pay disparity between men and women. In other words, pay discrimination is a real and persistent problem that continues to shortchange American women and their families. (Your Right to Equal Pay Understand the Basics, WH website).

Yeah, and many of the facts the Hartster throws up in his commentary that HE says accounts for the (justified) pay disparity? The WH says that they account for those things (2nd paragraph), and that the disparity is not justified, it's based on discrimination. Discrimination based not only on gender, but on the race of the woman (none of Willis' excuses for why pay disparity is justified explanation why a non-white woman should earn less).

So, am I going to believe Willis, or am I going to believe the Barack Obama White House? Yeah, I think you know the answer. By the way, Willis (I'm guessing in response to me linking to his commentary on my Facebook page), authored a "quick addendum" in which he refers to my citing the Lilly Ledbetter case as proof of his wrongness as "surface thinking"... because "this of course isn't to imply that INDIVIDUAL women haven't been discriminated against".

So, Willis' response after I called him on his BS was to say that the pay discrimination Lilly Ledbetter sued over was an isolated incident and not the norm. However, I again point to the statement on the WH website that says otherwise. In any case, should we really be punishing women for the biological reality that they bear children? [1] Or is this not the kind of anti-female discrimination Willis claimed was not a factor? I mean, if women take time off to have children (and ONLY women can have children), and they're being paid less for doing so, isn't this anti-woman? That might be something Willis needs to think about... although I seriously doubt he will.

So, is Willis a misogynist? Yes, I think the case is fairly strong that he is. Or a case could be made that he has some stronger than normal anti-female biases. Seeing nothing wrong with punishing women for having babies (and thinking it is perfectly fine to reward men for not having them, when a man giving birth is a biological impossibility), as well as calling male privilege "supposed" (something Willis did multiple times) are yet two more reasons to believe I'm on the right track here, IMO.

Footnote
[1] Sentence excerpted/modified from "Debunking the Myth of a Mythical Gender Pay Gap by Joshua Holland. BillMoyers.com 4/8/2014.

Video1: Patricia Arquette delivers a powerful feminist message after winning the Best Supporting Actress Academy Award for her role in Boyhood. Published 2/23/2015 (1:22).

Video2: President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act on January 29, 2009. In this video, Lilly shares her story. Uploaded 1/29/2012 (6:22).

OST #48

Saturday, May 30, 2015

On People Who Insist That Anyone Advocates For "Make Work" Given The Fact That There Is Actual Work That Needs To Be Done

These people are total morons/idiots and/or liars. Will "Take No Prisoners" Hart is one such person. In a recent commentary on his blog the Libertarian said "make-work advocacy... is only advocated by those who fail to understand the text".

So, WTF is "the text"? Damned if I know. I do know, however, that make work is really just a phrase used to push the concept of the government putting people to work when jobs are scarce. You've heard of it. Supposedly Person A digs a hole and Person B fills it. But there is actual work that needs doing (and this idiotic hole digging and filling scenario has never actually happened).

Yet the Willises of the world who hate the idea of Government stepping in and (in order to put money in people's pockets and jumpstart the economy) hiring unemployed folks to participate in worthwhile and needed public works projects (etc), vilify it. And lie, or buy into the fable that anyone has actually ever been hired to dig a hole and another person hired to fill it (or other similar pointless work).

Although the Hartster may actually be stupid enough to think this has ever actually happened. Or is a huge liar and spinning another of the strawmen he loves so much. I suspect he falls somewhere in between the two (he's a stupid liar).

Out of work Americans could be work on needed infrastructure projects right now, if not for the obstruction of the Republican Congress (which got worse after the last midterm). These would not be pointless hole digging and filling jobs, but needed work, given the state of this country's infrastructure.

Infrastructure is vital to our country's economic growth and development. It's the fundamental system we rely on to move people, goods, and services. Every business, large and small, depends on it... Infrastructure includes the essential pieces of our transportation network like roads, rails, and ports, and it also includes water facilities, our electrical grid, and high-speed broadband networks. There is no part of the economy that infrastructure does not touch. World-class, state-of-the-art infrastructure can boost growth, create opportunities, and spark innovation. Crumbling, outdated and inefficient infrastructure can be a serious drag on the economy, creating barriers to success and mobility.

Unfortunately, whereas once the US could easily boast of having the most sophisticated, modern infrastructure in the world, today we are rapidly falling behind. We simply have not been making the kinds of investments that are required to even maintain the system we have now, let alone improve and update it. Instead of maintaining and investing in a more efficient and effective system, our infrastructure has deteriorated because of insufficient funding... (Repairing Our Infrastructure Senate Budget Committee. Bernie Sanders, Ranking Member).

And as economist Robert Reich points out...

Robert Reich: ...it's cheaper than ever for the United States to borrow. Deferred maintenance is taking a huge toll. ... Now connect the dots. Anyone with half a brain will see this is the ideal time to borrow money from the rest of the world to put Americans to work rebuilding the nation's infrastructure. (Why This is Exactly the Time to Rebuild America's Infrastructure 9/26/2011).

There is no need to "make" work. Work that needs to be done exists, which is why nobody is advocating we "make" any, you idiot Willis! But it's entirely possible that Willis is one of those who does NOT have "half a brain", which might explain why the deluded fool buys into Libertarian nonsense as strongly as he does.

OST #47

Thursday, May 28, 2015

Unbreaking News: Willis Hart is Still With Us

In my prior commentary I reported that the Libertarian blogger who goes by the Blogger ID Will "Take No Prisoners" Hart, but whose real name is Willis Hart, had passed away. Although I said I did not know for certain that Willis had croaked, but was only guessing that he kicked the bucked due to the lack of activity on his blog.

I thought the lack of activity was extremely odd, given the fact that Willis is an extremely prolific blogger. On a normal day he will post multiple commentaries. Then Willis went completely silent for 2 full days (his last post was on 5/19/2015, and he resumed posting on 5/22/2015).

Because of this (the two days with zero posts) I concluded that Willis had passed away. Gone to the great beyond. Or, given the fact that he is an atheist, was currently rotting in the ground. But it turns out I was wrong. Willis roared back with a vengeance. On 5/22/2015 he posted 3 new commentaries. On 5/23/2015 he posted 4 commentaries. 4 on the 24th, 2 on the 25th, 3 on the 26th, and 2 on the 27th. Although, today, on the 28th, he has (so far) posted none. Although I expect a couple new ones before the day is out.

In any case, my prior report of Willis' Hart's demise was (obviously) premature. Willis Hart did not buy the farm. He is alive and kicking and busy authoring dozens of posts in which he spews Libertarian BS, argues in favor of oligarchy, race baits, bashes poor people/endorses corporate welfare, and participates in the misogyny-based war on women by justifying the fact that women earn less than men for doing the same work.

Oh, and more about how much he hates dead Commies. Not that I disagree with him in regards to totalitarian dictatorships being horrible (because the dictator lied about bringing Socialism to the populace, which they yearned for, and then starved/imprisoned/killed them instead), but what about the oligarchs and our rigged economic system? That he disputes is even reality. Not surprising, given his strong desire for American to go completely neo-feudal.

Anywho, what was the reason for his absence? Turns out he was out of town enjoying some gross-flavored saltwater taffy. Licorice/anise and cloves are his favorites? How disgusting. Just thinking about these revoltingly nauseating and foul flavors makes me want to barf. As does thinking about the impact his political views have on our country and the world.

Although, as previously mentioned, no commentaries so far today. Maybe he ate some more of that taffy and can't post because he is vomiting continuously? I mean, I would be if I ate taffy that was "clove" flavored. Yuck. But it figures his palate would find something distasteful tasty, given that is how he leans politically; toward that which is distasteful to all but the oligarchs.

OST #46

Friday, May 22, 2015

Breaking News: Willis Hart Has Passed Away

You heard it here first folks. The Libertarian blogger who goes by the Blogger ID Will "Take No Prisoners" Hart, but whose real name is Willis Hart, has passed away.

Actually, I do not know this for certain, but I am guessing this is what happened based on the fact that there has been no activity on his blog at all since 5/19/2015 at 9:04 PM.

Which is extremely odd, given the fact that Willis is an extremely prolific blogger. On a normal day he will post multiple commentaries. Now nothing for 2 full days? The only conclusion that can be reached is that Willis is no longer with us.

Now, while some people may think that this news has me overjoyed, given my dislike for this fellow, that simply is not true. Willis, even though he held a lot of insane Libertarian ideas and was quite racially biased, was (I'm sure) not that bad a fellow.

His friends will likely miss him. I know he has friends, BTW, because he has (in the past) remarked on how he told them about me and these friends all remarked on how crazy they thought I was. Or so Willis said. Perhaps he lied.

In any case... RIP Willis Hart. You will be missed. I'm guessing. Lester, Dennis and Rusty will miss you here in blogistan, and in the real world some others will shed a tear. Again, I'm guessing. Perhaps there will be some people who will be overjoyed and throw a "good riddance, Willis" party where everyone will dance a jig to celebrate Willis' departure from this world. But that would be extremely insensitive.

Obviously this is the final post on OST. Because continuing on with commentaries refuting Willis' nonsense (which was my sole reason for starting this blog) can't be done if there are no new Willis commentaries to refute.

I suppose I could go back and refute some old commentaries, but would that be appropriate now that Willis is deceased? I'm guessing the readers of this blog would say no, that would be in very bad taste.

So, with this post I say goodbye. I will leave this blog standing as a tribute to Willis. And close by saying that I harbor no hard feelings toward the man. Not that I am too sad, as Willis lived an extremely long life. I've heard that he was approaching his 100th birthday.

Or that he was in the 80 to 90 year-old range. So he lived a very long life. Which is all any of us can hope for. Without any major health issues (I think. He was employed as a hospital orderly and not retired, in any case).

Comments from any who want to wish Willis a bon voyage into the great beyond will be published. Although I believe Willis is rotting in the ground (if he has been buried yet). He was an atheist, after all, and atheists can't get into heaven.

But this does not make me sad, as any atheist I've ever heard speak does not seem that concerned that when death takes them there is nothing but darkness and oblivion awaiting them.

Given this fact, I wish Willis a nice oblivion. If that's a thing. At least he won't be aware of it as the worms do their work breaking down his body. That might sound grim, but that's the reality of atheism. But this is not an anti-atheism screed. If you are, like Willis was, a non-believer, please do not take offense.

Comments that speak of what a douche Willis was will be rejected, as speaking ill of the dead is not generally accepted as being something decent people do. Which I am, of course. A decent person. Even if Willis was not always decent in return (like when he banned me from his blog for an extremely stupid reason).

I know that Willis would say (were he alive) that I was not decent to him while he was among the living. Claims of sending "unwanted" comments to his blog that frightened him greatly would likely be made. I know he made them while he was alive.

And sure, I did submit comments to his PUBLIC blog, but were they "unwanted"? I say no, given the fact that his blog was PUBLIC, indicating that viewing of his blog (as well as commenting to said blog) was something that anyone could do. Look at it and submit a comment. Because the blog was public. Unfortunately Willis did not seem to understand the concept.

But now that Willis is gone that is a moot point. At least he no longer has to fear receiving an "unwanted" comment from yours truly. No longer does he have to live with the terror of possibly viewing a comment from me that would shatter his echo chamber (causing extreme anger and the necessity of having to dash off a rebuttal while enraged), given the fact that he has kicked the bucket and bought the farm.

But what a horrible thing it must be to live one's life cringing in fear of comments that refute an ideology you hold near and dear... despite it being (almost all) completely wrong and utter bullshit.

OST #45

Monday, May 18, 2015

On The Racist Idea That Black Leaders Are "Race Hustlers"

Yet another race baiting commentary from Libertarian blogger Willis Hart, this one dealing with the issue of referring to Black leaders are "race hustlers".

Willis Hart: On When White Folks Say Something Racially Insensitive, Apologize for it, and STILL Crawl on Their Hands and Knees to Minstrels Like Sharpton and Jackson for Absolution... I consider this an insult to black people times two; a) you have to hear some jerk-off fool insult you and b) you have to suffer the added indignity of some moronic white person thinking that these two buffoons speak for and represent you. It's disgusting and the fact that these two race hustlers have cashed in one episode after another makes it even harder to stomach. (5/13/2015 AT 7:53pm).

Only idiots like Willis think that anyone agrees that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson speak for and represent ALL African Americans (A 2013 Zogby Analytics poll found that one quarter of African Americans said that Sharpton speaks for them). These two gentlemen are, however, leaders in the African American community and definitely NOT "race hustlers". This is a term invented by racist Conservatives to demean these leaders and the good work they do. I mean, Al Sharpton frequently donates his time when is asked to intervene (proving his motivations aren't 100 profit-based).

Past Black leaders are frequently disrespected, although nobody (or significantly fewer people) would ever refer to Martin Luther King as a "race hustler". But Willis did recently write a commentary that was negative in regards to MLK.

Willis Hart: On Martin Luther King Being "Nonviolent"... I'm going to go with 75% true on this one. Yes, he marched and advocated for his positions in a peaceful manner and for that he should be commended. But it also must be pointed out that King insisted that there be laws, and whenever there are laws their is force, and whenever there is force this is at least the spectre of violence (do as I say or go to jail, etc.). (5/11/2015 AT 4:15pm).

I'm going to go with 100% bullshit on this one. I don't even understand WTF he's talking about. Is he referring to people possibly being arrested for marching and violence done against them (by the police)? Is that what he refers to? So... MLK was responsible for police violence against protestors in marches he lead? Seriously, I don't know what the hell Willis is criticizing MLK for.

That being the case, I must conclude that this is naught but nonsense from the Hartster. Scratch that. It's racist nonsense. Especially given the following comment from Willis in response to his own post.

Willis Hart: I agree with Rand Paul before he flip-flopped... 80% of the Civil Rights Act was appropriate but the part that forced private businesses was not. (5/13/2015 AT 8:29am).

Willis is referring to Randal Paul's response to a question from Rachel Maddow that concerned the portion of the Civil Rights legislation signed by LBJ that dealt with "desegregating lunch counters". Randal indicated that he would have opposed the portion of the Civil Rights legislation that forced private businesses to serve everyone if he had been in Congress at the time.

But Willis is wrong. It is 100 percent appropriate that businesses be forced to not discriminate. That they are "private" is not relative, as these businesses are open to the public and therefore must serve the public. If they refuse the public has the right to rescind their business license. Discrimination is WRONG as it infringes on a person's RIGHT to live their life free from it. But Libertarians like Willis concern themselves more with the "right" of bigots to discriminate. Nice.

Also, I don't know that Randal "flip-flopped". I think he caved to public pressure and said he'd have voted for it. Because this was a hypothetical question anyway and he loses nothing by saying he'd have voted for it. I very seriously doubt he actually changed his mind (so you can rest easy Willis. I'm sure Randal still agrees with your bigoted stance on this issue).

And NO DOUBT there would be businesses that TO THIS DAY would discriminate against African Americans if they could. And Willis thinks this is OK? Obviously he does. He spins it as a matter of principle, in that private businesses should be able to do with their property (and labor) as they wish (the standard Libertarian argument). But I quite frankly DO NOT buy it.

I mean, why is Willis publishing all these race baiting commentaries on his blog? IMO the reason has something to do with Libertarians thinking racism is a good thing if it leads to lower wages for African Americans (or other minorities). Because any excuse a plutocrat can find to pay a lower wage to a worker is a good one.

And Black leaders who are continuing the fight for Civil Rights are to be denigrated. Past leaders like MLK as well, although the racist Willis treads more lightly when criticizing him. Which isn't the case with present leaders like Sharpton and Jackson. Those leaders he goes after full bore, using the disgustingly racist term "race hustler".

(See SWTD #281 for a commentary concerning Willis' attack on Sharpton's MSNBC program Politics Nation using the vile racist pejoritive "Minstrel Show". Yeah, that's right... UNBELIEVABLY he refers to Sharpton using a term that involves White people putting on blackface to ridicule African Americans!)

Image Description: Martin Luther King III and Rev. Al Sharpton talk to reporters outside of the U.S. Supreme Court on 2/27/2013 in Washington, DC. The court heard oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder, a legal challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

See also: SWTD #281.

OST #44

Saturday, May 16, 2015

On The Racist Suggestion That Cops Killing African Americans Is No Big Deal Because African Americans Are Killing Each Other All The Time Anyway

Libertarian blogger Willis Hart latest racist commentary, this one dealing with the issue of the Police killing African Americans.

Willis Hart: On When Ray Ray Plugged Andre Who Had Just Got Done Offing Mookie... Do not these black lives matter, too? (5/9/2015 AT 9:05pm).

So, Willis is suggesting that because African Americans kill other African Americans regularly (because Black people are extremely violent), cops killing them isn't a big deal? Or African Americans should be protesting violence within their own community and accept that African Americans killed by the police have it coming?

Is it just me or does anyone else find this incredibly racist? I mean, I plugged in some words from one of Mr. Hart's latest commentaries: "a black person is 25 times more likely to attack a white person than the other way around"... (Without the quotes) and what comes up FIRST in the search results? A link to The Daily Stormer, a Neo-Nazi/White nationalist Website! Yikes, right?

So, Willis shares his opinion regarding the violent nature of African Americans with White Supremacists. Although his link is to Discover The Networks, which is a website run by the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Although The David Horowitz Freedom Center is described by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a far-right organization that is (maybe?) slightly less racist than The Daily Stormer.

Chip Berlet, writing for the SPLC: [Horowitz's organization has a habit of] blaming slavery on "black Africans ... abetted by dark-skinned Arabs" and of "attack[ing] minority demands for special treatment" as "only necessary because some blacks can't seem to locate the ladder of opportunity within reach of others", rejecting the idea that they could be the victims of lingering racism". (David Horowitz Freedom Center/Criticism).

Yeah, perhaps the Hartster should have checked out WHO he was quoting before quoting them? So as to avoid the embarrassment of citing a racist and bigoted "freedom center". You know, regardless of the accuracy of the statistics. We get what the message is, which is the same as that of White Nationalist groups represented by websites such as "The Daily Stormer". That message being that "Blacks are prone to violent behavior and this is why they belong in Africa". But Willis does also point out on this blog that "African chieftains traded Black slaves for trinkets".

Anyway, is it a "fact that a black person is 25 times more likely to attack a white person than the other way around"? Willis, citing "Discover The Networks", says it is. He adds that this factoid is "probably a revelation to those of you who strictly get your news from the Huffington Post, MSNBC, liberal talk-radio, Media Matters, etc".

Ah, no, Willis, this is no "revelation" to me. The revelation (even if it is not much of one) is that you'd go to a racist website in order to procure the information you were looking for. In order to enforce the racist message you wanted to send.

The real reason that this stat exists is our history of slavery and continuing racism greatly enhancing poverty in the African American community. Some African Americans, being the victims of poverty enhanced by racism, react (as many people do when in poverty situations) criminally. Many by selling illegal narcotics. Others by engaging in violent criminality. I'm not saying that we need to give criminals a pass if they happen to be Black, but ignoring the root cause of this criminal activity won't fix the problem.

...do black Americans commit more crime? Some criminologists think... black people tend to offend more because they tend to be more disadvantaged, living in poorer urban areas with less access to public services, and so on. ... This study of violent crime in deprived neighborhoods in Cleveland, Ohio, found that reductions in poverty led to reductions in the crime rate in exactly the same way in predominantly black and white areas, suggesting poverty, not race, is the biggest factor. (Channel 4 Factcheck article by Patrick Worrall. 11/27/2014).

Poverty and crime are linked, as are poverty and racism.

In a report to the UN General Assembly, a UN rights expert has emphasized that poverty is closely associated with racism and contributes to the persistence of racist attitudes and practices which in turn generate more poverty. Racial or ethnic minorities are disproportionately affected by poverty; and the lack of education, adequate housing and health care transmits poverty from generation to generation... poverty does not result only from an unequal sharing of resources. "Discrimination against groups and persons based on their ethnicity, race, religion or other characteristics or factors has been known to encourage exclusion and impoverish certain groups of the population who suffer from unequal access to basic needs and services". (Poverty and Racism Inextricably Linked Says UN Expert by Kanaga Raja, who is Editor of the South-North Development Monitor (SUNS), from which this article is reproduced. Social Watch, 12/11/2013).

We need to work to decrease racism and poverty (and decreasing racism will decrease poverty). And decreasing racism and poverty will result in a decrease in crime. But does Willis mention any of this in his commentary? Of course not. Because his SOLE objective is to say "Blacks violent". And then, with his commentaries following this one, excuse police killings of Black people... why? Obviously they had it coming due to them (Black people) being so violent.

As for Black people killing other Black people... people who kill other people almost always kill people they live near. Blacks primarily kill Blacks and Whites primarily kill Whites. It's a proximity thing, and not a race thing. And YES, those Black lives matter, but the police are SUPPOSED to "serve and protect" and NOT kill people (unless they have no choice). Obviously the police had the choice to not beat down (or give a rough ride) to Freddie Gray. I've heard nothing about him fighting back or resisting arrest, so how the hell did he sustain injuries that lead to his death?

THAT is why the African American community is protesting, you idiot Willis! Not because the lives of Black individuals killed by Black criminals don't matter, but because the police aren't supposed to be killing people without cause (just because they're Black)!

OST #43

Monday, May 11, 2015

Disgusting Muslim Bigotry From Libertarian Blogger Willis Hart

Libertarian blogger Willis Hart's latest commentary defending fellow Muslim bigot Pamela Geller.

Willis Hart: On Pamela Geller... Like it or not, the Constitution was written to protect the speech of people exactly like Geller (and Eugene V. Debbs, the KKK, etc. before her) who don't go around saying, "I like kittens" or "gee, that rose is pretty". And if the Muslims don't like it, they can go fuck themselves... or at the very least turn the channel. Boom, done. (5/9/2015 AT 6:54pm).

Spot the bigotry? No, it isn't Willis pointing out that free speech is protected by the Constitution. He is absolutely correct that speech, no matter how repulsive, is protected. The bigotry (and profanity) comes in when he says "if the Muslims don't like it, they can go fuck themselves". And then "Boom, done".

No, not "boom done". Muslims don't have to "go fuck themselves" if they don't like it. They can use THEIR free speech to point out that Geller is a bigoted a-hole who is deliberately attempting to provoke a media response for attention and $ (and the idiot might expect violence). So, why go there? Why not respect other religions?

But the bigoted Hartster, while perhaps not as bad as Geller, LIES. First of all, Willis is referring to Muslims living in the United States (he refers to the Geller event held in Texas), and US Muslims (by and large) defend the first amendment rights of Geller.

Dean Obeidallah: Anti-Muslim advocate Pam Geller has the absolute right to draw any cartoon she wants of the Prophet Muhammad. That was not just the response from Muslim-American leaders I spoke to after news broke Sunday night of a shooting outside a Garland, Texas, event that Geller had organized—offering $10,000 for people to draw images of Muhammad - but before that event as well. (Muslims Defend Pam Geller's Right to Hate. The Daily Beast, 5/4/2015).

Secondly, US Muslims ALSO have free speech rights and can exercise them in response to Geller's ugly exercise in bigotry.

Dean Obeidallah: I'm not saying that some Muslims (and even people of other faiths) aren't offended and/or disgusted by the idea of Geller offering $10,000 for people to draw despicable cartoons of Muhammad. This is akin to offering a prize for people to draw the most anti-Semitic or racist images imaginable, with the true goal being to stoke the flames of hate versus Jews or Blacks. But the reality is American Muslims deeply value freedom of expression. (Muslims Defend Pam Geller's Right to Hate. The Daily Beast, 5/4/2015).

OK, so above I said Willis lied, but I actually think it's far more likely that he's simply unaware that Muslim-American leaders said Geller has the right to hate. However, I am convinced him not being aware of this fact is deliberate.

He hates Muslims so much that he does not bother to seek out the truth. In his bigoted mind the actions of a small number of radicalized crazies represent ALL Muslims and that it is a typical response for an offended Muslim to react violently.

But he thinks this because he's a bigoted hater. Also because he's a pompous ass who enjoys lecturing inferior groups of people from on high (and, in his mind, almost everyone is inferior to himself).

See also: SWTD #269 and TADM #54.

OST #42

Sunday, May 10, 2015

On Punishing People For Being Poor

Libertarian blogger Willis Hart advocates punishing people for being poor (using code language) in one of his latest postings.

Willis Hart: On Making Poverty Comfortable... It is the surest way known to man to guarantee its continuance. (5/9/2015 AT 5:02pm).

Is anyone else as disgusted by this as me? Making poverty "comfortable"? Seriously? Surely this nutjob does not believe that our current weak social safety net does this? Scratch that. Being a Libertarian, I'm positive he does. Because Libertarians hate poor people. Although they mostly hate Progressive Democratic policies that prohibit exploiting the poor.

Progressives (note: NOT Blue dog nor "centrist" Democrats) oppose eliminating the minimum wage (they actually want to raise it), oppose prison slave labor, and oppose free trade (outsourcing slavery). (Note2: Some Progressive ideas are shared by the Democratic Party at large. President Obama being in favor of raising the minimum wage; but Progressives are the originators and biggest champions of these ideas).

This is why Willis frequently rails against and demonizes Progressives. Because they stand for everything he hates. Which is the notion that in the richest nation in the world there is no reason for anyone to live in extreme poverty.

We could pay could workers fairly by raising the minimum wage. We could bring back our jobs back by raising tariffs and eliminating tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas. We could make it easier for employers to join unions. We could produce a highly trained workforce by making higher education free. We could make the government the employer of last resort. We could decouple health insurance from employment with a national health insurance program (single payer).

But doing these things would make it harder for wealthy business owners to exploit the poor here in the U.S. (and around the world) to further enrich themselves. Because these actions would make poor people "comfortable". What these Libertarians would have us do would be to make life as miserable as possible for "the poors".

Because when poor people are focused on scrambling to make enough to feed themselves and stay alive; that's when they'll accept any pittance offered for their labor. And it's also when they have no political power (because all their energies are devoted to working night and day to earn enough for food and shelter).

FYI, we are nowhere near "making poverty comfortable" in the United States. The United States is among the world's wealthiest countries, but it has one of the highest poverty rates among developed nations.

U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries: Poverty rates in the United States increased over the 2000s, a trend exacerbated by the Great Recession and its aftermath. By 2010, just over 46 million people fell below the U.S. Census Bureau's official poverty line... [Putting] the U.S. experience with poverty in an international context [by] comparing the lower end of the wage and income distribution in the United States with that of "peer" countries (countries within the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development with roughly similar GDP per hour worked as the United States) [shows that] the ratio of earnings (wages) at the 10th percentile of the earnings distribution to earnings of the median worker [if proof of] more inequality [in the United States than in other OECD countries]. (Excerpted from an Economic Policy Institute article by Elise Gould and Hilary Wething. 7/24/2012).

That our lowest hourly wage workers make less in relationship to our median wage workers than do workers in other countries is proof that - in the United States - we are in absolutely no danger what-so-ever of "making poverty comfortable". This is nothing but Libertarian propaganda they use when arguing that our social safety net is too strong.

Classist BS, in other words. The actual surest way known to man to guarantee the continuance of poverty would be to punish people for being poor by adopting Libertarian Social Darwinism as economic policy.

OST #41

Friday, May 8, 2015

Profane Language In Support Of Destroying American Jobs

Yes, you read that right. Libertarian blogger Willis Hart hates American workers SO MUCH (and desperately wants to see their good paying jobs sent outside the US) that the idea of some progress made in that direction not panning out causes him to use profane (homophobic?) language.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that the Federal Income Tax (as Proposed in 1913) was Supposed to Be a Replacement for the Tariff (to the Point of Eliminating it)... Yeah, the cock-suckers lied. Big surprise, huh? (5/7/2015 AT 10:12pm).

OK, so I read the Wikipedia page for the Revenue Act of 1913, and it says absolutely nothing concerning the income tax replacing tariffs. Likely because nobody "lied" about this, because it would have been a very bad idea. Up to this point "customs duties (tariffs) and excise taxes were the primary sources of federal revenue".

Tariffs being lowered after industry in the United States was established (and therefore not as much protectionism was necessary) was not necessarily a bad idea, but eliminating them entirely would have opened up American workers to competition to workers in the lowest of the low wage nations. Which is more relevant than ever today, given the more recent development of sending jobs to third world countries.

Wikipedia/Offshoring: After its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, the People's Republic of China emerged as a prominent destination for production offshoring. Another focus area has been the software industry as part of global software development and developing global information systems. After technical progress in telecommunications improved the possibilities of trade in services, India became a country leading in this domain, though many parts of the world are now emerging as offshore destinations.

Offshoring is becoming ever more prevalent. Back in the day genuine trade was more the issue; US companies trading with foreign companies; as opposed to US companies moving production (and white collar jobs) to low wage countries. But this is what Libertarians like the Hartster want, because then all our manufacturing (and more white collar) jobs would go away.

And, when it was first instituted the income tax only applied to 1 percent of Americans. Now it applies to everyone. But Willis hates American workers so much that he'd rather he (as well as those in the upper classes) pay an income tax (although he strongly opposes that tax going any higher than it is). Because (the now trans-national) companies (run for the benefit of the plutocrats) not being able to maximize profits by screwing American workers is a nightmare Willis finds abhorrent.

Those third world workers don't make out so well either. Yeah, they get some jobs where before there may have been none, but they're back breaking slave wage jobs performed in unsafe conditions. But this is another bonus for the Libertarians who hate these workers as well. Not as much, perhaps, as they're easier to exploit, being more desperate and not used to a higher standard of living like American workers.

But American workers will eventually become used to living with less. Sure, it will take some time to knock down their expectations, but our wealthy overlords are working on the brainwashing.

[A] $200,000 ad campaign [from right-wing multibillionaire Charles Koch], now running in Kansas, starts off like one of those breathless infomercials: "Are you in the 1 percent?" a male voiceover asks. "Well, if you earn over $34,000 a year, you are one of the wealthiest one percent" - he pauses slightly before the kicker - "in the world". (Charles Koch on the Poor: Let Them Eat Economic Freedom by Leslie Savan. The Nation, 7/16/2013).

Obviously, for American workers to compete on a "level playing field" with the world's poorest workers our standard of living will have to go WAY DOWN. Imagine sickly American workers living in their cars or homeless shelters and obtaining sustenance from food pantries and soup kitchens being the norm. Now you've got an idea of what the Libertarian utopia would look like.

And, that we could have gotten there a LOT sooner explains why Willis is so incensed! I mean, America could be a long established oligarchy right now (instead of only being well on it's way to being one), if not for the "cocksuckers" who "lied" when the income tax was proposed.

OST #40

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

On Willis Hart's Focus On Baltimore Rioting Whilst Not Mentioning Why Rioting Is Taking Place

Thus far Libertarian blogger Willis Hart has authored Two commentaries on the riots in Boston... and ZERO commentaries concerning the reason why the African American community is upset... and why SOME are rioting. Despite the fact that the officers involved in the death of Freddie Gray have have been criminally charged.

On May 1, 2015, state prosecutors in Baltimore received a medical examiner's report ruling Gray's death a homicide. Prosecutors also said that his arrest was illegal because the alleged switchblade was a legal-sized pocket knife. The prosecutors stated that they had probable cause to file criminal charges against the six police officers who were believed to be involved in his death. One officer was charged with second degree depraved-heart murder, and others were charged with crimes ranging from manslaughter to illegal arrest (Source: Wikipedia).

Yet neither of Willis' two commentaries even mention WHY people are rioting. Nor does Willis (or any of his commenters) speak of the murder of Freddie Gray in either of the discussion threads.

Not in this one from 4/29/2015.

Willis Hart: On those Miscreants, Degenerates, and Lunatics Who Burnt Down the Senior Center in Baltimore It really doesn't get much lower than that, now does it? I mean, what are these schmucks gonna start doing next; pistol-whipping foster-children? Beheading the developmentally-delayed? (4/29/2015 AT 5:02pm).

Nor in this one from 4/20/2015.

Willis Hart: On the Riots Currently Taking Place in Baltimore... Sorry, but I'm having a hard time envisioning Ed Koch or the first Mayor Daley putting up with this crappola. (4/20/2015 AT 8:04pm).

Strangely, however, Willis did comment concerning the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and Eric Garner. In those instances he blamed the victim (Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown were definitely responsible for their own deaths in his mind while Eric Garner shared responsibility with NY mayor Bill De Blasio... yeah, really!).

But, in regards to the two recent cases in which the cop (or cops) involved were charged? Willis completely ignored the case of Walter Scott, who was shot by officer Michael Slager - as the unarmed Scott ran away. And, in regards to Freddie Gray - well, I already showed how he responded to that murder. He ignored it and focused on the riots (as if they happened for no reason at all other than Black criminality).

Willis Hart Contra O'Reilly comment concerning Trayvon Martin from 7/17/2013.

Willis Hart: Not only is there reasonable doubt in this case, most of the evidence points to the fact that this was a political and malicious prosecution [of George Zimmerman]. (7/17/2013 AT 10:36am).

Willis Hart Libertas and Latte comment concerning Michael Brown from 1/23/2015.

Willis Hart: Multiple BLACK witnesses corroborated Wilson's version of the story. As did the forensics. The sad fact here is that Brown was a thug who robbed a convenience store, punched a cop in the face, and tried to take his weapon and that stories such as this never seem to end well unfortunately. (1/23/2015 AT 7:58pm).

Willis Hart Contra O'Reilly comment concerning Eric Garner from 12/27/2014.

Willis Hart: And, yes, he bears a huge amount of the responsibility for his death; some big fat fuck with asthma putting himself in a stressful situation. (12/27/2014 AT 10:23am).

See a pattern here? It's that Willis only comments on the killing of a young Black man when (in his mind) it's justifiable to blame the victim and/or defend the shooter/killer. In cases where it's obvious the cops might be guilty of murder (because of video evidence and/or excessive injuries)... then we get complete silence from Willis. Or he ignores the killings and focuses on the aftermath. Like his last two posts calling out rioters as "miscreants, degenerates and lunatics" and suggesting that the cops should get tough.

Although, unlike his buddy Rusty Shackelford, Willis does not say how the cops should respond, saying only "I'm having a hard time envisioning Ed Koch or the first Mayor Daley putting up with this crappola".

Rusty Shackelford: Fuck the tear gas... Fuck the rubber bullets... Fuck the bean bag's... Load up with live ammo and chop about 100 of these animals down... this shit would end in a hurry. (4/27/2015 AT 7:06pm from the blog "Who's Your Daddy").

No, Willis would absolutely not agree with his friend Rusty concerning his suggested mass murder of Black "animals". But I'm thinking these two do share some of the same racial prejudices.

Willis Hart: I like Rusty the same way I like Don Rickles and Triumph the Insult Comic Dog. He amuses me (7/29/2008 AT 8:49pm)

Sorry Willis, but I could never say that I "like" a racist scumbag like Shackelford. Yeah, that Shackelford comment is from another blog and Willis probably didn't see it, but Shackelford has made his racist proclivities known on Willis' blog. They don't bother Willis because he SHARES them. To a much lesser degree (I'd say Shackelford is a hardcore racist, while Willis only has strong racial biases), but yeah, I think the above shows a distinct pattern.

I am, for the record, absolutely NOT saying the rioters did not break the law or that they should not be held accountable. They did and they should. If the rioters can be identified they should be charged and convicted of appropriate crimes. An opinion the liar Willis implies I disagree with.

Willis Hart: On Rioting... There is never an excuse for it - PERIOD!!!(5/2/2015 AT 10:26am)

No, there is no excuse, but there is understanding why some could get frustrated to the point where they would do such a thing (although I will concede that for SOME, an excuse to grab free stuff might be a factor). As Shaw Kenawe of Progressive Eruptions pointed out on her blog with a quote from MLK... "A riot is the language of the unheard".

The trouble with Willis is that he doesn't understand the concept of institutional racism, as this just added commentary from his blog clearly illustrates.

Willis Hart: On Pronouncing People Guilty Prior to Having All the Evidence... It is only something that a sick, idiotic, ineducable, and ill-informed asshole would do. Yes, those cops in Baltimore (three of whom are black, btw) quite possibly did something wrong but not everybody who gets indicted is guilty (just ask the ham sandwich) and that's why we have a trial and refrain from shooting people on a whim a la Lenin, Stalin, Hussein, al Qaeda, etc. (5/2/2015 AT 10:42am).

OK, so Willis finally breaks his silence, but he does so to DEFEND THE COPS that are responsible for Freddie Gray's death! Un-freaking-believable! And he still does not mention WHO these cops *might* be guilty of causing the death of. And he makes a point of mentioning that two of the cops are Black (overlooking/discounting institutional racism).

And I assume the Hartster is referring to me, but I NEVER "pronounced" anyone guilty. I made my opinion known as to these cop's guilt (and I think it's pretty clear they are guilty so I don't know HOW THE HELL Willis can defend them). But an opinion is not a "pronouncement". Nobody can be pronounced guilty until there is a trial. And, no, it does not matter if any of the cops were Black (institutional racism, look it up).

Obvious guilt, and this racially biased jackass is concerned about people "pronouncing... when the ACTUAL pronouncing (by a judge and jury) has yet to occur. And he speaks of "refraining from shooting people on a whim"... in reference to the murdering cops! Yeah, maybe the cops should do that, Willis! Refrain from severing people's spines too. As for these cops, they will have their day in court. Unlike Freddie Gray... who didn't even do anything for which the police had cause to arrest him, given that the knife he was carrying was legal.

OST #39

Saturday, May 2, 2015

On Willis Hart Using Someone's Weight To Denigrate Them & Referring to An Overweight Person As A "Fat Fuck"

Most recently in regards to Liberal documentary filmmaker Michael Moore.

Willis Hart: On Fat, Stupid Michael Moore Denigrating American Sniper/War Hero, Chris Kyle, Calling Him a Coward... I can't even look at this asshole anymore... And did you see how he tried to back away from it once the shit hit the fan, saying that wasn't actually talking about Kyle? I mean, come on. (1/19/2015 AT 9:31pm).

What the hell does Mr. Moore's weight have to do with his tweets in response to the release of the movie "American Sniper"? Absolutely nothing. Willis is one of those people who judges people based on appearance. An incredibly shallow and vain person, in other words.

As for what Mr. Moore said about snipers I say "eh". He has a point. Chris Kyle killed a lot of people, some of them innocent. Although it was ex-preznit bush who illegally invaded Iraq. So, I'd say we shouldn't have even been there. Or Afghanistan. Then CK wouldn't have killed anyone.

But, naturally the Rightwing is going crazy over comments such as Mr. Moore's in regards to this film by the Republican Clint Eastwood (he who embarrassed himself at the GOP convention by talking to an empty chair).

The film is a "pro-War on Terror masterpiece" according to an article on the Breitbart site.

Yikes! I haven't seen it, but if that is an accurate description that I'd have to agree with Seth Rogan... who tweeted that he thought it had some similarity to a Nazi propaganda film (specifically the film within the film "Inglourious Basterds").

Although I've also heard the movie described as an account of the effects of war on soldiers... Kyle did feel guilt over those he'd killed and suffered from PTSD (I think, although I'm not positive).

My guess is that the Rightwing will read into the movie what they want. Although perhaps the Breitbart description is accurate given who the director is. Although some on the Left say the film shows the horrors of war and the effects of it on our soldiers... and thus is anti-war. But Breitbart claims that the movie is NOT anti-Iraq war... this is something the author of the article says the Left lies about.

That said, I haven't seen it, nor am I that familiar with Kyle's story. But I do find it odd that Willis refers to Kyle as a "war hero", given his claims of being "anti-war".

Anyway, on to the second example of Willis denigrating someone based on their weight. This time with a particularly vile (and profane) slur directed at the murdered Eric Garner (SWTD #275).

Willis Hart: he bears a huge amount of the responsibility for his death; some big fat fuck with asthma putting himself in a stressful situation (12/27/2015 AT 10:23am).

Geez... really, Willis? This guy is becoming increasingly foul-mouthed and more often than not aligning himself with the Right... this despite him believing he is an "independent". Here he's agreeing with the likes of NY Rep Peter King, who blamed Garner for his own death. Although Willis also laughly and idiotically blames politicians who support the cigarette tax.

Blaming the victim, fat shaming, and using profane language to refer to a dead man? Proof positive that Willis Hart is a piece of shit. Or, he's absolutely a piece of shit... in my book.

OST #38