The following commentary from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart featuring support for the Islamaphobic Right in the context of bashing the "Regressive Left".
Willis Hart: On the Fact that Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Condemnation of Female Genital Mutilation in Islamic Countries Is Seen by a Great Many Regressive Leftists (Maajid Nawaz's Term and I Like it) as an Example of Imperialistic Condescension... Do these idiots just not understand how condescending that THAT sounds? Apparently they don't.
P.S. They also apparently don't seem all that exorcised about the rigid separation of the sexes in Muslim societies, honor-killings, the paranoiac and ridiculous emphasis on sexual purity, the forced covering of women, the murder of Christians, forced conversions, the destruction of numerous churches, the death penalty for apostasy and homosexuality, the viscous dehumanizing of Jews, etc. Nope, it's all about the relatively mild imperfections of the West. That's their bread and butter. (3/27/2016 AT 3:15).
Figures Willis would like this woman's slamming of the Left. He says for referring to female genital mutilation in Islamic countries as "imperialistic condescension", but this Hirsi person is apparently the Black Pamela Geller... in that she has "called for amending the US Constitution in order to discriminate against Muslim Americans" and has been praised by the likes of Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik, perpetrator of the 2011 Norway attacks.
Breivik idolised Hirsi Ali; putting her forward as a worthy Nobel Peace Prize recipient. He saw in Hirsi Ali almost limitless propaganda potential declaring in his manifesto "...because of her background she has made criticism of Islam acceptable to people who would otherwise find it difficult to digest". (The Progressive Left? by johnnyspooner. From the blog "drifters and parking spaces", 1/2/2016).
Breivik is a far Right nut who views "Cultural Marxism" as the enemy (something he has in common with the Tea Party movement). "Cultural Marxism" is a reference to a far Right conspiracy theory that says "all the ills of modern... culture, from feminism, affirmative action, sexual liberation and gay rights to the decay of traditional education and even environmentalism".
Breivik targeted The Workers' Youth League which "is Norway's largest political youth organization and is affiliated with the Norwegian Labour Party", murdering 77 people.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is directly associated with Dutch anti-Muslim extremist Geert Wilders, a politician who "campaigned to stop what he views as the Islamisation of the Netherlands". Ali emigrated to America after she was found to have "falsified her asylum application" in the Netherlands.
Although before the Netherlands kicked her out, she "was elected a member of the House of Representatives (the lower house of the Dutch parliament), representing the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy", a Rightwing Dutch political party tha is anti-Islam and anti-immigration.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali says that "we are at war with Islam [and that] there comes a moment when you crush your enemy". She is among the haters who believe that "the majority of Muslims aren't moderates and they must radically alter their religion", making her a natural fit for the American Enterprise Institute, which she joined as a "fellow" after coming to the United States.
According to a 6/21/2012 ThinkProgress article, The American Enterprise Institute's Islamophobia Problem, AEI Scholar Robert Spencer (an Islamaphobe who has collaborated with Geller) was "cited 162 times in Anders Breivik's manifesto".
Re the notoriously Islamophobic Geller, Willis Hart has defended her "free speech" rights on his blog.
Willis Hart: 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).
OK, so Willis does say "the gal's not my cup of tea", but that's a incredibly weak rebuke of Geller's hate. Actually, it isn't a rebuke at all. And notice that he says Muslims can "go fuck themselves", as opposed to them using their own free speech rights to denounce Geller's hate? Maybe he thinks they should just shut the hell up and let Geller spew her hate unchallenged? (OST #42).
My point is that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has (and has been) aligned strongly with the Islam-hating Right and these are the kind of people the Harster gravitates to. It doesn't hurt that Ali is a former Muslim, so her criticisms carry more weight for that reason. And she isn't entirely wrong. I agree that Islam has many problems in this area, but the answer is not hate. Obviously we need to be reaching out to the Moderates, but you're clearly not going to get anywhere if you deny Moderates even exist!
Which is why I call BS on the Hart's assertion that the Left isn't "all that exorcised about" these issues. They are. They just disagree with the Right's belief that hate is the way to go. They don't want to solve problems. The purpose of their hateful rhetoric is to inflame their racist bigoted base for profit and votes.
As for the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation being referred to as "imperialistic condescension", I could find no "regressive Leftist" usage of this term. So, because Willis provides no proof that a "great many regressive Leftists" hold this view (and my own Google search turned up nada), I can only guess as to what he was talking about. My GUESS is that (if any Leftists raised this concern) they were referring to how Muslims who approve of this practice might view Westerners who attempt to tell them they need to change their ways.
And why the hell would they be eager to be lectured to by their former colonizers? Sounds like a legitimate concern to me. Seems to me the Right thinks, re the old saying that "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar", that actually the opposite is true. In their minds the BEST way to change people's minds is with condemnation and hatred.
Me, I think that the fact that this hate speak inspired terrorists like Anders Breivik is proof that hate does NOT work because hatred only breeds more hatred. But I think that's the goal here. Because more riled up the more hateful idiots are the better it is for the bottom line of those in the Islamophobia Industry. Ca-ching!
But back to the Hartster... I really don't think he gives to big of a crap about female genital mutilation in Islamic countries. The REAL reason for his post is that it's an opportunity for him to bash the "regressive Left", while aligning himself with bigots who fear monger about "Islamization". What's next, posts about how we need to be passing laws banning Sharia Law here in the US?
Perhaps not. But the posts from the regressive Libertarian idiot bashing Muslims and promoting hate as an answer (via agreement with those whose bread and butter is selling Islamophobic hate) will NO DOUBT continue. How shameful.
Image: Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Pamela Geller. Ali's writings are cited frequently by Pamela Geller's blog Atlas Shrugs. Willis quotes Ayaan Hirsi Ali "...because of her background she has made criticism of Islam acceptable to people who would otherwise find it difficult to digest", while saying (re Geller) "the gal's not my cup of tea". However, as the picture shows, THEY'RE ON THE SAME TEAM! And that quote? Remember that it's from the terrorist Anders Breivik!
Except that this is not a fact. Bernie Sanders actually has absolutely nothing to do with who gets recruited to play basketball at Vermont U because he does NOT work or consult for the university. Although the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart seems confused on this matter.
Willis Hart: On the Fact that the University of Vermont's Basketball Teams (Men and Women) Are Comprised Mostly of White Players... What's the matter, Bernie? You don't like black people up there? (3/28/2016 AT 8:32pm).
As you can see from the images below (which show the teams Willis is referring to) there are Black players. If they didn't like Black people "up there" maybe they'd all be white? In any case WTF does Bernie Sanders have to do with which players the University of Vermont choses? Yeah, absolutely nothing.
Anyway, that Willis Hart, an individual who has demonstrated strong racial prejudices with numerous commentaries on his blog, is completely full of shit to suggest that Bernie Sanders is racist. Especially given the fact that Bernie Sanders' record of standing up for equality.
...Sanders has a 50-year history of standing up for civil and minority rights... As a student at the University of Chicago, Sanders was active in both the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). In 1962, he was arrested for protesting segregation in public schools in Chicago; the police came to call him an outside agitator, as he went around putting up flyers around the city detailing police brutality.
While President Bill Clinton and most Democrats in Congress supported so-called welfare reform politics, Sanders not only voted against this policy change, but wrote eloquently against the dog whistle politics used to sell it, saying, "The crown jewel of the Republican agenda is their so-called welfare reform proposal. The bill, which combines an assault on the poor, women and children, minorities, and immigrants is the grand slam of scapegoating legislation, and appeals to the frustrations and ignorance of the American people along a wide spectrum of prejudices".
A frequent critique of Sanders is that he is from a very white state. While this is true, he certainly has not ignored issues that matter to people of color. In 2002, he achieved a 93% rating from the ACLU and a 97% rating by the NAACP in 2006. (19 Examples of Bernie Sanders' Powerful Record on Civil and Human Rights Since the 1950s by Zaid Jilani. AlterNet 7/20/2015).
The facts show that Bernie Sanders has been fighting for equality for his whole life, so when Willis Hart says Bernie Sanders doesn't like Black people - the facts say he's full of shit.
And, as the AlterNet article points out, Sanders is from a state that is 77.4% White and 13.2% Black, so, that Vermont's basketball teams only have a few Black players is obviously due to demographics and not racism. Yet more proof that Willis Hart is a total moron!
Images 1+2: The 2015-2016 Vermont Catamounts Men's and Women's basketball rosters.
So now even the Republicans who some say are "seemingly sensible fellows" (John Kasich and Chris Christie) are spouting all sorts of crazy buffoonery about arming this group and shooting down planes from that group. I mean, it's almost as if the Republican party as a whole is under this spell and with the biggest case of amnesia ever (the fact that Iraq was one of the top two or three foreign policy blunders in U.S. history with these bozos seemingly not learning a thing).
Even Donald Trump, who is correct that going into Iraq was a huge strategic blunder says he's going to "bomb the shit" out of ISIS. As if that isn't what Obama HAS been doing. In any case - what to do? The blogger Willis Hartsuggests voting Libertarian. I say no.
First of all, the Libertarian running for president, Gary Johnson, has ZERO chance of getting elected president. If you want to prevent the most hawkish candidate from getting elected, then I say there is ONLY one choice, and that choice is Bernie Sanders (SWTD #323).
The following is an excerpt from Senator Sanders' campaign website...
Bernie Sanders: I opposed the first Gulf War... because I believed that there was a way to achieve our goals without bloodshed, through sanctions and concerted diplomatic action. ...in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001, I supported the use of force in Afghanistan to hunt down the terrorists who attacked us. I regret that President Bush did not use that authority properly, and that American combat troops remained there too long.
I voted against the war in Iraq, and knew it was the right vote then, and most people recognize it was the right vote today. The only mission President Bush and his neo-conservative friends accomplished was to destabilize an entire region, and create the environment for al-Qaeda and ISIS to flourish.
While we must be relentless in combating terrorists who would do us harm, we cannot and should not be policeman of the world, nor bear the burden of fighting terrorism alone. The United States should be part of an international coalition, led and sustained by nations in the region that have the means to protect themselves. That is the only way to defeat ISIS and to begin the process of creating the conditions for a lasting peace in the region. (Issues: War & Peace. Excerpted from the Bernie 2016 website).
Sounds reasonable to me. I don't know what Gary Johnson would do differently, if by some miracle he was elected president (God forbid). And, while Sanders has a real chance of getting elected to the presidency, there is actually no chance at all of a president Johnson. I know I sure as hell would never consider voting for him, given the fact that Libertarians don't believe the government should be doing shit to provide for the General Welfare.
Yes, we currently have a huge problem with the wealthy bribing our elected officials to do their bidding. But the solution is to reform the system, not jettison it! Our elected officials are supposed to do our bidding, not the will of the donors and special interests. Yet folks like Willis think the solution is to shrink government so it can't do anyone's bidding. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater!
That Libertarians profess not to believe this would be the result leads me to think they're either incredibly naive or lying. As for Willis Hart? It appears to me that he's a genuinely duped true believing ignoramus.
As for the Harster and Senator Sanders, Willis has said on more than one occasion that ALL politicians are "mixed bags" (quote: "basically every politician who's ever frigging lived... are quintessentially of a mixed nature"), so given the fact that "by far, the biggest category of [federal government] discretionary spending is spending on the Pentagon and related military programs" you'd think that Willis wouldn't be as hostile to the idea of Sanders winning the democratic nomination as he has been (quote: why can't "Hillary... put this guy... away?").
"This guy" being Senator Sanders and "put away" meaning end his presidential campaign easily). This "wish" (or expectation) that Hillary Clinton should be beating Sanders even though she is clearly considerably more hawkish (Hillary Clinton's Hawkish Record).
So, while the Hartster does signal Trump out for praise as compared to the rest of the Republican field (in regards to his claims of being against the Iraq war and being less neocon), he has authored no commentaries even acknowledging that Bernie Sanders is considerably less hawkish than Hillary Clinton. Proof that Hart's claims of being "moderate" and "centrist" are similar to Fox Nooz's assertion that it's "fair and balanced".
Apparently this is a worry that concerns the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart.
Willis Hart: On the Notion that World Government Would Eliminate the Need for War... Total horse-shit. a) There would still be the possibility of a civil war (and, boy, would it ever be a dandy) and b) even if there wasn't a war, we all know for a fact that governments worldwide have slaughtered far more of their own people (democide - Google it) than they've ever killed through warfare, and that if we ever decided to give these fiends ultimate power they would more than happy to up the ante. Please, wake up, folks. (3/19/2016 AT 2:54pm).
Frankly, I find it "horse-shit" that anyone would author such a post. One world government? Does Willis REALLY think that is something he needs to worry about? What's next? A series of commentaries about how the Illuminati and Freemasons are planning the New World Order at the Bilderberg conference?
BTW, as far as "democide" goes, as per the person who "revived and redefined" the term "democratic institutions—even partial ones - reduce the likelihood of armed conflict and all but eliminate the risk that it will lead to geno/politicide" ("demo" being ancient Greek for "people").
As Wikipedia points out, examples include "the Great Purges carried out by Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union, the deaths from the colonial policy in the Congo Free State, and Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward, which resulted in a famine killing millions of people". So what we should be fearing are totalitarian dictatorships (if a "one world government" were ever to come about it isn't guaranteed that it would not be a democracy).
However, I think that "democide" is really Libertarian code for "government bad". ANY kind of government. Even democracy. Which Libertarians also hate, btw. Because (Libertarians believe in kingdom rather than democracy.
Not kingdom in the traditional sense of the word, where the progeny of the King inherits rulership, but a system under which corporations are kingdoms and the CEO rules. This is the kind of organization Libertarians prefer. A "meritocracy" of the wealthy (wealth being proof of a person's right to rule). Although most of us refer to this as plutocracy.
And you think the plutocrats don't kill people? I'm more worried about what would happen if these fiends gained more power (via further deregulation and by "allowing them to keep more of their own money"). I'm positive they would more than happy to up the ante. And here I think is something that is well within the realm of possibility, unlike with the Hartster's one world government delusions.
The misgoynist blogger Willis Hart has a prediction regarding the likely Democratic potus nominee, Hillary Clinton.
Willis Hart: ...just maybe, the Democrats need to look elsewhere for a candidate (you know, before the bitch gets indicted). (3/19/2016 AT 4:16pm).
Previously Willis said HRC is a "lying piece of shit lawyer who may in fact be wearing a jump-suit by election time". MAY, he said. Now he's sounding a LOT more convinced that an indictment is coming. I mean, he didn't say "the Democrats need to look elsewhere for a candidate because the bitch might be indicted".
My prediction is that the Democrats won't "look elsewhere" as it is too late. HRC is well on her way to securing the nomination. Personally I'm for Bernie Sanders, but I'm sure that he's NOT the "elsewhere" Willis is referring to, given that he thinks Sanders is an "economically illiterate socialist buffoon", a "creep", and a "dim bastard" who needs to "climb out of some primordial morass learning how to stand upright while simultaneously keeping the spittle intact".
So, no that isn't going to happen. We hear that the Repub establishment might try to take the nomination from Trump via a brokered convention, but HRC is the establishment candidate. And she will likely have enough delegates. If she's the voter's choice AND the establishment's choice she is going to get the nomination.
Anyway, getting indicted for her emails? The likelihood of that happening is extremely low.
TPM's Josh Marshall: Experts Agree Clinton Indictment "Chatter Is Just Plain Ridiculous". ...chances of an indictment are a "far-fetched" idea ...a mix of ignorance and tendentiousness" [TPM, 2/1/15].
ABC News: "There Doesn't Seem To Be A Legitimate Basis For Any Sort Of Criminal Charge Against Her". ABC News' legal analyst Dan Abrams debunked media outlets hyping the claim that Clinton will be indicted over her private server usage. ..."there is no evidence..." [ABC News, 2/1/16] (Experts Push Back Against Right-Wing Media Claim Clinton Emails Violated Federal Law by Cydney Hargis. Media Matters 2/1/2016).
Willis also claims that HRC "kept sensitive national security information on what now appears to have been a poorly encrypted system", suggesting (as the RW media has suggested) that she put this info at risk. But "security logs... show no evidence of any foreign hacks" (No evidence of hack in Hillary Clinton's email, former tech aide tells FBI).
Bottom line here... I seriously doubt there will be any kind of indictment. Very seriously.
Finally... in regards to the Hartster's previous outrage concerning a Lefty blogger (on a Progressive site he used to visit and comment on) referring to Sarah Palin as "classless piece of excrement", and him saying "I don't condone ad hominem attacks"... what a f*cking hypocrite (OST #119).
But that WTNPH would have one opinion re Sarah Palin and another when he lobs a practically identical fecal-based pejorative at Hillary Clinton is not a surprise at all. Same as it's no surprise that he wanted the Conservative Webb to be the Democrat's nominee (Why EVERY Conservative Should Support Democrat Jim Webb For President).
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, specifically in regards to the email controversy).
The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart has referred to some "they" that lied about replacing tariffs with an income tax. A "they" he apparently hates very much (caution: Willis expresses his hate via disgusting vulgarities and profanities).
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).
Willis Hart: On the Fact that the Income Tax Started Off in 1913 at 1% (with Only the Rich Paying it)... Folks have compared it to boiling a frog; the fact that when you put a frog in boiling water it jumps out but when you put it in cool water and warm it gradually it croaks (sorry). Same with taxes and the economy. P.S. It also must be stated that the income tax was supposed to be a trade-off for eliminating the tariff and, so, yep, they fucking lied about that, too. (3/12/2016 AT 3:11pm).
So "they" promised that if there were an income tax, tariffs would be eliminated? I guess this is a fact that is so well known that Willis doesn't need to cite a source, huh? Although I must admit that I don't know what he's talking about.
Some background here... the Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, was the first time that a peacetime income tax was proposed. There had been an income tax previously (to pay for the Civil War). This time, however, the income tax, "was to make up for revenue that would be lost by tariff reductions".
So here we DO have an example of tariffs being lowered and that income made up with an income tax. But Wilson–Gorman only REDUCED tariffs. "They" never said the purpose of the bill was to get rid of tariffs. BTW, the income tax was ruled unConstitutional when "the U.S. Supreme Court decided Pollock V Farmers Loan Trust Co, striking down the federal income tax of 1894".
But Willis referred to a bill passed in 1913. This incarnation of the income tax came about after ratification of the 16th Amendment which "allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on the United States Census".
The Revenue Act of 1913 (the act Willis refers to) "re-imposed the federal income tax... and lowered basic tariff rates from 40% to 25%". Again, nothing about ELIMINATING tariffs here, just lowering them. Looks like Willis is wrong. There was no promise that the income tax would replace tariffs (not that I've been able to verify, at least).
So what the hell is the Hartster talking about? Because only "team members" can comment on his blog (currently) I couldn't submit my question there... so I sent him a message through FaceBook. I have a feeling he won't respond, however.
The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart likes to present himself as a Moderate type of guy who dislikes both Republicans and Democrats equally, but he's a total phony and hypocrite.
Willis Hart: On the Prospect of a Trump Versus Clinton Race this Fall... I'm taking a mental shower just thinking about it (an erratic ego-maniacal snake-oil salesman versus yet another lying piece of shit lawyer who may in fact be wearing a jump-suit by election time). (3/3/2016 AT 3:44pm).
First of all, Hillary isn't going to be wearing a jumpsuit (due to being convicted of crimes relating to having a private email server). This assertion is delusional thinking you'd expect coming from some far Right nutter.
Secondly, Willis referring to HRC as a "lying piece of shit" is rich, given his sustained outrage when he read similar comments concerning Sarah Palin on a Lefty blog (back when he ventured outside of his echo chamber).
Willis Hart Post: Sarah Palin obviously exploited that motorcycle rally today. But, come on here, folks... some of the vitriol of late; "media whore", "trailer trash", "classless piece of excrement", "trashy wench"... it's really starting to scare me, people. (5/30/2011 AT 4:26pm).
Willis Hart Post: On Sarah Palin Being a Classless Piece of Excrement... The debate (between me and this small contingent of progressives) isn't about whether Sarah Palin is qualified to be President (she isn't)... It's about how low people apparently have to go to feel superior. ... Look, folks, I'm sure that there are conservative blogs out there that are equally vile toward the President... But, as of now, I haven't seen a single one. (6/2/2011 AT 7:54pm).
Willis Hart Post: The Indecency of Extremism... Only in the farthest fetters of far-left (i.e., progressive) la-la land would the "defending" of Sarah Palin against slurs such as "worthless piece of excrement"... be considered as "defending Sarah Palin". It's insane, folks. (6/29/2011 AT 3:30pm).
Willis Hart Comment: I don't condone ad hominem attacks, Shaw. I don't condone that guy calling you "vermin". I don't condone Lesley Parsley calling Sarah Palin "a worthless piece of excrement". (3/16/2012 AT 1:10pm).
Willis Hart Comment: Hopefully, I will never go quite that far. [calling SP excrement] (4/7/2012 AT 3:32pm).
That's a HELL of a lot of bellyaching over one comment (from Lesley Parsley on Sue's blog). It offended Willis so much he got scared. Presumably because he couldn't believe Progressives would sink so low (weird, given how much he hates Progressives, referring to them as Regressives). Yet he does the same thing in regards to Hillary Clinton?
Willis said "hopefully, I will never go quite that far", but now he has. Only in the farthest fetters of extreme Conservative (i.e. Libertarian) la-la land would engaging in the hurling of poop-based insults such as "lying piece of shit" (when said person previously objected vigorously to this kind of behavior) not be considered hypocritical in the extreme. The suggestion that Willis Hart was EVER a "moderate"? It's insane, folks.
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, specifically in regards to the email controversy).
I'm thinking that the Libertarian Willis Hart must have been a Southerner who lived during the Civil War era in a former life. Likely one that strongly supported seceding from the Union due to his desire for slavery to continue. Although he no doubt lied about the reason being tariffs (OST #5 & SWTD #241).
I say this because the dude blogs about it with regularity. Likely hundreds of posts by now. And all of them concern his belief that the South had the right to leave the Union and Lincoln wanted them to stay so he could pass out tariff money extracted from the South to his cronies (DSD #20).
Willis Hart: My personal theory is that he [Abe Lincoln] just got so addicted to the tariff revenue which had fallen disproportionately on the Southern states and with which he was using to solidify his political power and cronyism that the dude literally couldn't stop himself. (3/15/2014 AT 7:23am).
[Also]
Willis Hart: ...from 1832 to 1857, the tariff was actually quite low (Andy Jackson having caved in prior to Lincoln). But it was more than doubled by the Morrill Act... (3/21/2014 AT 9:41pm).
Both of these assertions are hogwash, given the fact that "the passage of the [Morrill] tariff was possible because many tariff-averse Southerners had resigned from Congress after their states declared their secession". The Morrill tariff (the tariff that really jacked up the rate) wasn't in place before succession! Prior to that tariff the trend was for cutting the rate. The fact is that the Morrill tariff "replaced the low Tariff of 1857, which was written to benefit the South". A FACT Willis acknowledges!
Another complaint of Mr. Hart's is the fact that the Northern armies committed atrocities against the people of the South.
Willis Hart: On the Warped Logic that, Since the South Fired the First Shot in the Civil War (the Truth Being that Lincoln Maneuvered Them Into this a la Polk with the Mexicans), this Gave Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Butler, etc. the Right to Ethnically-Cleanse and Dispossess Hundreds of Thousands of Innocent Civilians and Starve to Death Three Year-Olds and the Elderly... If any other nation or leader on earth had perpetrated these atrocities, it would have gone down in history as pure, unmitigated horror. But because it was us (and especially because it was Abe Lincoln), yeah, not so much. I really think that we need to reexamine our history and, yes, especially those "good wars". (3/9/2016 AT 8:51am).
OK, so I agree with Mr. Hart that war crimes were committed, but none of this was "ethnic cleansing"!
Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous. (Wikipedia).
People living in the North were NOT ethnically different from people living in the South, therefore the term "ethnic cleansing" DOES NOT APPLY! I suspect that Willis using it has something to do with his strong racial biases. White people killing other White people is "ethnic cleansing" in the White-centric world he resides in. A reality created by a delusion so strong that it has the Harster wondering how many Black people voted to secede! Here is some real warped logic for you!
I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue that any Civil War war crimes were A-OK, btw. For the record, what I find most disturbing about the Harster's obsession with Civil War war crimes is that these war criminals are all LONG dead. Their crimes occurred over 150 years ago. More recent war crimes that still living presidents are guilty of? Those he dismisses. Clearly he's only for reexamining ancient history and not recent history.
Maybe in his NEXT life he'll be advocating we reexamine the Iraq war and proclaiming that, if any other nation or leader on earth had illegally invaded 2 countries, killed tens of thousands (shock and awe [1]), locking away (without trial) many innocent people (and justifying it by labeling them "unlawful combatants") it would have gone down in history as pure, unmitigated horror?
Remember that ex-preznit bush "claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq" (George Bush: "God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq")? And remember when he referred to the "war on terror" as a "crusade", implying that this was a Christian war against Muslims? Given that the Crusades were holy wars initiated by various Christian Popes to capture the Holy Lands, which were held by Muslims.
No doubt, certainly from a Afghan or Iraqi point of view, the US was perpetrating some "ethnic cleansing", no? I mean, with bush's wars there was forced removal (by death) of a people who were ethnically and religiously different than the more powerful invading force. SURELY the mass murder that took place in Afghanistan and Iraq fits the definition of "ethnic cleansing" WAY better than what happened during the Civil War (where both sides were ethnically and religiously very similar).
Footnote [1] According to Iraq Body Count, "on a per-day basis, the highest intensity of civilian killings over a sustained period occurred during the first three "Shock and Awe" weeks of the 2003 invasion, when civilian deaths averaged 317 per day and totalled over 6,640 by April 9th, nearly all attributable to US-led coalition-forces, reaching 7,286 by the time of President GW Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech of 1st May 2003". (Iraq Body Count report: how many died and who was responsible?).
Video: preznit doofus refers to the "war on terror" as a "crusade" implying that the US is carrying out a religious war of Christianity V Islam (0:12).
It has been 3 years, 6 months, and 7 days since the Libertarian blogger Willis Hartbanned me from his blog (on 8/30/2012). Because he had had enough of my "virulent idiocy". "Virulent idiocy" being code for truths that contradict the misinformation Willis would rather believe (OST #15).
This banning did not stop me from commenting, however. I'd still stop by on a regular basis and leave a comment or two. Simply because I did not like being allowed to comment for several years and then being suddenly banned. Also because his blog is PUBLIC and he allows comments from anyone. Although he has enabled moderation, so nothing I submit is published.
Yesterday however (3/7/2016), that ended. Early this morning I attempted to submit a comment and noticed the following...
Comments on this blog are restricted to team members.
You're currently logged in as Dervish Sanders. You may not comment with this account.
You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
Then, when I tried to submit a comment anyway, I was confronted with the following...
Your current account (****@gmail.com) does not have access to view this page.
Click here to logout and change accounts.
Change accounts? No, that wouldn't help, since Willis forgot to send me an email inviting me to be a team member. Or, perhaps he just doesn't want any more comments that have the effect of disrupting his echo chamber?
Anyway, given the fact that he made it clear that he didn't want anymore comments (with few exceptions) awhile ago (when he banned one of his former best buds), I wonder what took him so long to (essentially) turn off commenting?
3/9/2016 Update: I encourage everyone who reads this to contact Willis via Facebook and ask him to send you a "team member" invitation. :)
It's a bullshit assertion to make, IMO. But that (of course) does not stop a buffoon like the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart from making it.
On the Fact that If Leftist Media Buffoons Like John Oliver and Stephen Colbert Truly Had the Power of Their Supposed Convictions They Would Voluntarily Give Up Their High Profile Gigs and Let a Deserving African-American or Woman Have Them Instead... Holding your breath? I'm not (the fact that idiots like this always talk a good game but when it come to making sacrifices themselves they never seem to). (3/5/2016 AT 10:03pm).
A buffoon is "a person who amuses others by ridiculous or odd behaviour, jokes, etc", btw, and I definitely think Willis saying that White male talk show hosts can't say they think more minorities and/or women should be employed in the industry they work in - without themselves quitting - is absolute bullcrap.
First, they've got contracts and thus can NOT "give up" their high profile gigs. Second, they aren't the ones that did the hiring. If they had pled with their employers to hire a "deserving African-American or woman" instead, that wouldn't guarantee that would have happened.
But this is the "hypocrisy" argument you see coming QUITE frequently from the Right. That a rich man can't be a champion for the less well off without giving his wealth away is the most common variant, although the common man is indicted as a hypocrite if he advocates for greater equality whilst using the products of a capitalist society (think OWS protestors being pilloried for daring to use iphones and Macbooks) [1].
But this is a fallicous argument. The reason those on the Right (like Willis) make such assertions is because they don't want these arguments being made (file such comments under "stoogery", IMO).
Anyway, WHO BETTER than someone already in said position to advocate that more minorities/women get the job? I personally give Oliver and Colbert kudos for saying such things. The ONLY buffoon I see is Willis Hart. (Not that I know what specific comments the Hartster is referring to, given the fact that he, as usual, leaves his readers guessing in that regard).
Footnote [1] This is called The Champagne Socialist Fallacy, a strawman that allows it's user to "rebuke entire arguments without even having to engage with a solitary point. [However] there is a level of hypocrisy in almost any egalitarian, rich or poor... This hypocrisy does not nullify their conviction; it is merely an outcome of the oligopoly we live in. The very idea that the privileged are speaking out against a system that has disproportionately benefited them should be revealing. A working class person hailing socialism will be dubbed envious; she or he lacked the individual merit to succeed... However, a rich person [who supports] a systemic redistribution of wealth is [acting] directly against their economic interests. And thus, in this respect, it is more poignant that they support it nonetheless" (excerpted from a diatribe by James Wright).
John Ellis bush, back when he was still a candidate for potus, in regards to American's slothful workers, said "people need to work longer hours and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families" (Jeb Bush says Americans "need to work longer hours" to earn more).
In agreement with the insulting lower-income-workers are lazy meme, the surface-thinking Libertarian blogger Willis Hart posted a chart on his blog that, according to him, shows that workers who earn more do so because they work longer hours. More hours equals more money... it's that simple. These workers are simply more industrious, whereas those who earn less do so because they are less industrious.
Willis Hart: On the Fact that the Average Worker in the Top Quintile Works 140% More Hours Per Week than the Average Worker in the Bottom Quintile Works... So, do the progressives have some sort of magic industriousness pill that they haven't shared with us yet? I'm guessing that they don't. (7/14/2015 AT 4:21pm).
Proof that this blogger is a surface-thinker is the brevity of his commentaries. His posts are ususally quite short because he NEVER drills down and attempts to figure out WHY. In this case, he assumes that because this chart shows workers who put in more hours earn higher wages that - BAM! - it proves they are more "industrious". And, conversely, those who put in fewer hours are lazy. The standard Libertarian tactic of demonizing and blaming workers, in other words.
But this is not true - it is a strawman (which this blogger LOVES, further explaining why he accepts it so readily).
Before I get to the TRUTH that explains this chart, I'd like to point out the source of said chart (which this blogger does not give)... which is the Heritage Foundation (Income Inequality: How Census Data Misrepresent Income Distribution by Rea S. Hederman Jr. and Robert Rector. 9/29/1999. chart 12: Average Weekly Hours of Work Per Working Age Adult. see below for said chart).
Wikipedia notes that "the Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 by Paul Weyrich, Edwin Feulner, and Joseph Coors". Paul Weyrich (1942-2008) was the scumbag who admitted that the greater the percentage of the citizenry that actually votes, the more likely it is that the Republican candidate will be defeated. Because Conservatism is bad for America. ("...our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down" was what he said cira 1980).
Heritage is now headed by the climate-change-denying former Representative from SC, Jim DeMint[1]. Why deny climate change? Because it's advantageous to the dirty fossil fuel industry. Here they're spinning the fact that higher income workers put in more hours as a result of their "industriousness". In other words lower wage workers could earn more if they weren't so lazy - and we shouldn't be blaming employers (they aren't underpaying workers).
However, the REAL reason for this discrepancy is that higher wage employees usually work for a fixed salary while lower wage workers are paid by the hour. Higher wage workers are putting in more hours because they aren't paid any more for hours in excess of 40! Of course employers are going to want to squeeze as many hours out of them as possible! Duh!
Lower wage workers, on the other hand, are (almost always) paid by the hour and (because of this) employers determine the number of hours worked. And they prefer to limit these workers to 40 hours or less a week (due to overtime and insurance issues). These workers can only work the hours their employer allows them to. "Industriousness" has nothing to do with it!
That salaried employees put in more hours than hourly-wage employees proves is that employers want free labor from salaried employees. And they don't want to pay overtime to hourly workers (a sentiment by Jeb! expressed, saying overtime pay is "the wrong approach"). And so they restrict worker hours.
Why High Earners Work Longer Hours (excerpt from a NBER article) During most of the 1900s, the hours of work declined for most American men. But around 1970, the share of employed men regularly working more than 50 hours per week began to increase. In fact, the share of employed, 25-to-64-year-old men who usually work 50 or more hours per week on their main job rose from 14.7 percent in 1980 to 18.5 percent in 2001.
This shift was especially pronounced among highly educated, high-wage, salaried, and older men. For college-educated men, the proportion working 50 hours or more climbed from 22.2 percent to 30.5 percent in these two decades. Between 1979 and 2002, the frequency of long work hours increased by 14.4 percentage points among the top quintile of wage earners, but fell by 6.7 percentage points in the lowest quintile.
[NBR researchers concluded] that many salaried men work longer because of an increase in "marginal incentives" to supply hours beyond the standard 40 per week. These workers don't immediately get overtime pay for the "extra" hours. But over a longer time period, they get a substantial reward in the possibility of earning a bonus or a raise within their current position, or they may win a promotion to a better job, or simply signal to the labor market that they are productive and ambitious and thus suitable for a better job in another firm. Alternatively, the longer hours may enable them to acquire extra skills or to establish networks and contacts that could be rewarded in their current firm or in another one.
In addition, the long hours may enhance their prospect of keeping their current job if the firm decides to lay off workers in the future. Studies suggest that perceived job insecurity has risen substantially among highly educated workers. (Article from the The National Bureau of Economic Research website).
So employers are dangling possible future rewards in front of their salaried employees noses to coerce them into working longer hours... while only a portion of the workers who volunteer free labor will receive these bonuses. And, if you are a salaried employee who does not want to give his labor away for free? Well, then, if there ever is a layoff, you will be the first to go.
This coercing of salaried workers into the gifting of free labor is just one aspect of the plutocrats' desire to not pay workers fairly (more money for them). Regarding hourly workers, they're being forced to work for less (or having their labor outright stolen).
America, Land of Low Pay - The Numbers Will Surprise You (excerpt from an Alternet article) In 2013, the gross domestic product of the United States was 16.77 trillion dollars. That's roughly $140,000 per each employed person in our country. Yet most people only see a small percentage of this in their wages. The median wage in the United States was $27,851 in 2013 (median wage is a better measure of how the average American is doing because a few extremely wealthy people at the top skew the average). This means 50% of working adults make $27,851 or less each year.
Why do so many jobs pay so little? The logic of the market is not to pay people what they deserve. It's not to pay people what would make a better life for them. It's to pay the absolute minimum that you can get away with. (2/16/2015 article by David Akadjian).
The bottom line here is that we don't need an "magic industriousness pill", as Americans already work harder than workers all other workers.
Americans Work More Than Anyone (ABC News article excerpt) Americans work more than anyone in the industrialized world. More than the English, more than the French, way more than the Germans or Norwegians. Even, recently, more than the Japanese. And Americans take less vacation, work longer days, and retire later, too.
According to a Bureau of Labor Statistics report released last year, more than 25 million Americans - 20.5 percent of the total workforce — reported they worked at least 49 hours a week in 1999. Eleven million of those said they worked more than 59 hours a week. Who are these people? [Author of the book The White-Collar Sweatshop, Jill Andresky Fraser] concludes they are white-collar workers, who do not punch a clock and whose hours therefore are the most difficult to track. (5/1/2015 article by Dean Schabner).
As for lower wage employees working fewer hours, those figures (from Willis' Heritage chart) include retired folks, students and other part-timers.
The overall figures for how many hours a week the average American works have been held down by the increasing number of part-time service and retail jobs in the economy. But since many of the part-time jobs have been filled by the increasing number of women in the workforce, and many of these women had previously been housewives, there are fewer hours when anyone is taking care of household chores. (Americans Work More Than Anyone).
Further proof that Willis, who apparently agrees with Jeb Bush here, is totally surface-thinking this issue. His (and Heritage's) strawman is a simplistic "work more hours, make more money", when the explanation isn't that Americans aren't working hard (they are) but that Corporate America is ripping them off. To bad there isn't a "magic anti-greediness pill" that could be forcibly administered.
Proof that corporate greed is at play here.
Jill Andresky Fraser (in her book The White-Collar Sweatshop, says "corporate greed and mismanagement ate the American dream". (excerpt from the Amazon blurb) In the 1990s, before the bubble of the "miracle economy" burst, corporate America grew fat on the miseries of the American worker. ...for those millions of Americans... life at the office has become a nightmare: seven-day-a-week workloads; reduced salaries, pensions, and benefits; virtual enslavement to technology; and a pervasive fear about job security.
The Publishers Weekly review (from Amazon) adds that Fraser "calls for workers to restore balance in the workplace by lobbying for reduced workweeks, reasonable productivity goals and limits on the use of contingent labor". We need to get LESS "industrious", in other words. Because "working hard and working long hours is associated with poorer health and burnout" [2].
There is also the fact that CEOs make approximately 373 times more than the average US worker [3+4]. And, despite what Willis says concerning "one person getting wealthier meaning another person has to get poorer [because] the economy is some sort of fixed pie and we all have to scrable to get our scraps" (this is a "brain diseased notion" he sez). But when CEOs steal SO MUCH from workers, these workers absolutely ARE getting "poorer" as a result.
Yes, I would agree that the economy isn't a "fixed pie" in that economies grow (or, over the long term our's has), but what we're talking about is people taking more than their fair share of that growth. I say the "brain disease" is afflicting Willis, in that he (being a TOTAL stooge) buys into every distortion and lie put forth by Corporate "think tanks" (propaganda machines) like Heritage (whose only reason for existing is to shill for the plutocrats).
The lie here being (in summary of my commentary) that 1 workers who earn more do so because they are "more industrious" (when in truth they work longer hours because they are salaried) and 2 people who earn less work fewer hours because they are lazy (when the truth is that they are hourly and can only work the hours their employer allows them to), and 3 the Heritage chart shows that if some people (the lazy ones) were "more industrious" they could earn more too (when the truth is that the the figures are skewed due to the fact that some low wage jobs are held by part time workers who, if the primary breadwinner of the household were being paid fairly, would not be working at all).
In regards to that last point, Heritage produces a (pointless) chart on their website that shows what the income distribution in the US would be if all workers worked the same hours (chart 3), which is their way of saying that, if some workers were not so lazy, income inequality would be significantly less. But this argument is totally bogus because... well, I already explained why, and if you don't get it, then I say (in agreement with Willis logic), "if you can't see the difference you're not worth the explanation".
BTW, in regards to the "fixed pie" that is our GDP - it grows or shrinks each year depending on whether or not we are in a recession or recovery - and depending on the rate of growth (or shrinkage). But whatever it is, that is what it is "fixed" at (for that year).
Also, in regards to that pie, as the Wall Street Journal notes, The 1% Captures Most Growth From Recovery. According to this article, "in 2009 and 2010, the first year of the current recovery, the one percent captured 93% of the income growth".
So, everyone got poorer due to the bush recession, and now the wealthy have captured 93 f*cking percent of the "recovery pie". But the Hartster is too brain-diseased to acknowledge this fact. I doubt even a "magic anti-stooge pill" would cure him! Instead he buys into Heritage/Jeb! lies that demonize lower wage workers as lazy. F*ck him.
Footnotes [1] Re Jim DeMint's climate change denying, prior to the 2010 midterms (when DeMint was still in the House), "an analysis of campaign finance by Climate Action Network Europe found nearly 80% of campaign donations [over $240k] from a number of major European firms were directed toward senators who blocked action on climate change [including] incumbents who have been embraced by the Tea Party such as Jim DeMint... and the notorious climate change denier James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma. (Tea Party climate change deniers funded by BP and other major polluters by Suzanne Goldenberg. The Guardian 10/24/2010). [2]We ask the experts: are we working too hard? Article from the University of Cambridge website. Quote is from Dr Brendan Burchell, a Cambridge University researcher in the Department of Sociology. [3] Why corporate CEO pay is so high, and going higher (excerpt) The numbers are in on 2014 CEO compensation, and [what the figures show is that] the average S&P 500 company CEO made 373 times the salary of the average production and non-supervisory worker in 2014, up from 331 times in 2013. The average pay package last year was $22.6 million, up from $20.7 million in 2013... The average gain in total compensation for the 200 highest-paid U.S. CEOs worked out to 9.1 percent last year. That handily thrashed the 2.4 percent economic growth and meager increase in personal income that other Americans enjoyed. (5/18/2015 CNBC article by Tim Mullaney). [4]The pay gap between CEOs and workers is much worse than you realize (exerpt) [As of 2013] The average Fortune 500 CEO in the US makes more than $12 million per year, which is nearly 5 million dollars more than the amount for top CEOs in Switzerland, where the second highest paid CEOs live, more than twice that for those in Germany, where the 3rd highest paid CEOs live, and more than 21 times that for those in Poland. (9/25/2014 WP article by Roberto A. Ferdman).
The Libertarian blogging hack Willis Hart frequently lies about politicians he doesn't like. (He lies or simply doesn't bother to check if what he's saying is accurate, but I say what's the difference).
BTW, when I say Willis is a blogging hack, I mean he attempts "to damage or injure by crude, harsh, or insensitive treatment; mutilate; mangle" (verb used with object #4) the truth. He often REALLY mangles it.
Willis, in a 10/17/2015 blog post, harshly damages the truth when he uses the word "hack" to mean "a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment: a political hack" (noun #2).
On the Fact that Political Hacks Like Bernie Sanders, Barney Frank, and Elizabeth Warren Never Seem to Get All that Exorcised Over Things Such as Civil Asset Forfeiture or Eminent Domain Abuses... Not surprising in that if you look at the fine-print of their progressive mission-statement it reads, "except when the oppressor is the state". (10/17/2015 AT 9:45pm).
Willis hacks away at the truth, mangles and mutilates it with his false claims about Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (as for him throwing Barney Frank into the mix, I say WTF... given the fact that Barney Frank isn't in politics any longer).
First up, the truth about Bernie Sanders and civil asset forfeiture.
Bernie Sanders: So-called civil asset forfeiture laws allow police to take property from people even before they are charged with a crime, much less convicted of one. Even worse, the system works in a way that makes it very difficult and expensive for an innocent person to get his or her property back. We must end programs that actually reward officials for seizing assets without a criminal conviction or other lawful mandate. Departments and officers should not profit off of such seizures. (Bernie Sanders Official 2016 POTUS Campaign Website).
Secondly, in regards to "eminent domain abuses", when Libertarians whine about this issue what they frequently point to is the 2005 SCOTUS case Kelo v. City of New London in which the court decided that eminent domain could be used to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development.
But many on the Right and Left agree that this was a bad decision.
National Review columnist and prominent political commentator Charles C.W. Cooke argues that a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's widely despised 2005 ruling in Kelo v. City of New London might attract broad bipartisan support. Unlike most amendments proposed in recent years, its appeal would not be limited to just one side of the political spectrum.
Bernie Sanders, while in the House of Representatives, voted YEA on a bill "that would prohibit expenditure of any federal housing, transportation or treasury funds to enforce the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v. City of New London" (Congress uses its domain to fight court's home-seizure rules).
So Bernie Sanders *is* exorcised over civil asset forfeiture and eminent domain abuses, in that he's opposed to them. There is no fine-print in his "progressive mission-statement" that reads "except when the oppressor is the state". This claim from Willis is pure BS and proof of the Hartster's disgusting hackery.
