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

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Is Willis Hart Water Tower Material?

This commentary concerns an 9/29/2015 post by the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart which he deleted on 10/1/2015.

Willis Hart: Water Tower Material? Let us surely hope not. (9/29/2015 AT 7:58pm).

The odd thing about this post, and the reason I decided to comment on it, is the picture of the individual Willis was asking the "water tower material" question about (see below). Who is this person, I thought? So I clicked on the picture, and the URL that opened suggests that Willis believes this is a picture of me.

I say this because the URL identifies the picture as wd.jpg. "wd" is short for my old Blogger ID w-dervish and is how Willis refers to me. He used to allow me to comment on his blog and that is when he came up with the "wd" abbreviation for my blogger ID.

Question is, if Willis believes this to be a picture of me, where the hell did this idea come from? I have never posted a picture of myself online. The picture is not of me, by the way. Which might be why Willis deleted the post. He realized the picture was not of me. Or he started to doubt it might be me. But why did he think the picture was of me to begin with? And where did the picture come from?

Or perhaps Willis realized that this post accusing someone of being "water tower material" simply because he does not like the person was in bad taste? Given how common these shootings are becoming, I mean. But I seriously doubt it, due to Willis being on the side of those who believe nothing can be done legislatively to reduce gun violence.

Also, in regards to Willis worrying about me being water tower material because I submit unwanted comments to his blog... what's the correlation between submitting comments (comments Willis refuses to publish) and shooting people?

I have no desire to shoot anyone, BTW. I do not own a gun. I have never shot a gun. I'm not even sure if I could figure out how to use it. If I did, I'm positive I'd be a bad shot. I think I'd need a rifle with a laser sight to hit anyone. Not that I want to shoot anyone. I absolutely do not, being the kind of person more likely to kill himself than anyone else (if I decided I needed to harm anyone).

Willis Hart, on the other hand? I think it is possible that Willis might be capable of huring others. Perhaps it might be "necessary" for Willis to shoot dead one (or more) of the violent Blacks he refers to frequently? If Mookie or Ray Ray were to attempt to mug Willis or break into his house?

I think he would feel justified in shooting them dead. As his Libertarian buddy Constitutional Insurgent sez, doing so would result in one less "oxygen thief" and therefore be a GOOD thing.

Certainly this scenario is a lot more probable than "wd" buying (a likely expensive) firearm, ascending a water tower, and killing people by shooting them. Especially considering the fact that I find gun violence abhorrent and am in favor of stricter gun controls.

But Willis is generally opposed to more gun control. He refers to such proposals as being "much more for for solace" than for actually reducing gun violence. This he sez in a commentary where he cites the gun nut John Lott! This Lott nutter authors works of fiction such as More Guns, Less Crime and has been dubbed (by Newsweek) "the gun crowd's guru".

Yes, Willis says "I'm not a gun owner myself and don't particularly care for them", but just because he does not currently have one (if he's telling the truth) does not mean he couldn't go out and buy one.

I mean, I told him I have no desire to own a gun (and, in response he said "I dare wd to put a sign on his lawn that says, gun-free zone"). Yet he thinks that I (as a non-gun owner) might be "water tower material"?

Willis obviously thinks that guns work as a deterrent... so much so that he sez if I put a sign in my yard indicating that I do not own a gun - I'd be certain to get robbed (I do not believe this). So wouldn't it be better to actually have a gun than rely on people not breaking into your home because they think you MIGHT have a gun?

Given Willis' belief in guns deterring violence (in agreement with the nutter John Lott), how can he justify NOT owning a gun? Isn't he just asking to get robbed? Which is why I'm not at all convinced that he isn't a gun owner. And, if he does have one, surely he'd use it to shoot a robber.

So, in regards to killing someone with a gun - while there is a zero chance that I will ever take a life by shooting someone, I'd say the chance that Willis might is higher. How much higher I can't say, but I'd wager it's quite a bit higher. Because, while Willis is probably NOT "water tower material", I could absolutely see him killing someone with a gun during a home invasion.

Heck, Willis might put the "gun free zone" sign in his yard to fool Mookie and Ray Ray into breaking into his home so he could shoot them dead, thereby ridding the world of TWO "oxygen thieves".

By the way, I forgot to mention that this post is yet another example of Hart putting up a post that likely makes sense to absolutely nobody (except him). I mean, I had to click the image and examine the URL to determine who the hell was in the picture (or who he THINKS is in the picture). Anyone else viewing the post was probably confused, wondering WHO Willis was worried about being "water tower material".

But Willis does this quite frequently... simply expects people to know what the hell he's talking about, even when his commentary contains minimal facts (in this one the crucial missing piece of info is the "who" of "who, what, when, where, why"). Yes, this absolutely says Willis would make a terrible journalist... but does it also point to Willis being afflicted with the "brain disease" he frequently accuses others of having? Yeah, I think that's a possibility.

In any case, it is the Hartster who is the gun nut, not I. So, if either of us were to go postal because we're "water tower material", I say the evidence shows that person is FAR more likely to be Willis Hart and FAR less likely to be Dervish Sanders (AKA "wd").

Image Description: Not a picture of wd, although Willis apparently believes it is (at least at the time he posted it, although he may have changed his mind, explaining why he deleted it later).

OST #73