Sunday, July 31, 2016

White Racist Blogger Clueless That Racism Is The Primary "Lingering Effect Of Slavery"

Yet another stark example of just how racist the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that (According to Historian, William Shaler) the Arab Practice of Enslaving White Europeans (a Practice that Lasted FOR CENTURIES) Didn't End Completely Until 1816 (When the British and Dutch Joined Forces and Shelled Algiers to Rubble)... So, can I blame all of my problems on the "lingering effects of slavery"? Can I at least give it a shot? (7/30/2016 AT 9:13pm).

Perhaps if Willis was a White guy living in Algeria (depending on the state of race relations there, which I am 100 percent uninformed on). But we're talking about the United States, where the vast majority of slaves were Black.

And that Black slaves were looked at (basically) as livestock (inferior to Whites) is why we still have racism today. THAT (I'd say) is the primary lingering effect of slavery. I mean, does Willis believe that today there is complete equality between Whites and Blacks?

BTW, cluelessness, when it comes to the issue of racism, is itself racist, IMO. Or a sign of it. Here we have a fellow who is so steeped in his White privilege that he totally misses this obvious fact! And he thinks that, because White people were enslaved elsewhere in the world; and elsewhere in the distant past (1816) that he too (as a White guy) can claim he's suffering from the "lingering effects of slavery".

Which he says sarcastically, of course. What he really means is that he isn't suffering from the "lingering effects of slavery", and NEITHER ARE BLACKS. Because both examples are totally equal and totally ridiculous (in his racist mind). When sane people (Blacks, Whites who are far less racist than the Hartster) would disagree. Strongly.

And recognize that Willis Hart's comments are those of a stupid clueless White-privilege-enjoying racist asshole.

For the record, and as Willis has pointed out, some slaves (in the United States) were White. Most of them (I believe) were indentured servants (see footnote). But none of the descendants of these slaves are subjected to racism today. You know, BECAUSE THEY'RE WHITE!

Wikipedia/Indentured servant/Indentured servant: About half of the European immigrants to the American colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries were indentured. Between one-half and two-thirds of white immigrants to the American colonies between the 1630s and American Revolution had come under indentures. However, while almost half the European immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies were indentured servants, at any one time they were outnumbered by workers who had never been indentured, or whose indenture had expired. Free wage labor was the more prevalent for Europeans in the colonies.

OST #165

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Willis Hart Bullshit: "I Tried To Warn The Left" About Debbie Wasserman Schultz

In this commentary we have, I think, strong evidence of brain disease from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart ("brain diseased" being a pejorative term he likes).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that We Now Know for Certain (Through Wikileaks Releases) that Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Rest of Those Goons at the DNC Were Busily Stacking the Deck Against Bernie Sanders in an Effort to Pave the Way for Hillary Clinton... I tried to warn the left about this treacherous rodent but they wouldn't listen. Maybe they'll listen now. (7/25/2016 AT 5:19pm).

Yeah, it's true that the WikiLeaks release shows that (now former) DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was acting as a HRC surrogate in a position in which she was supposed to be acting with neutrality. But the Bernie supporters already knew this. Although I don't know I'd go as far as Willis does. Because what he's saying doesn't quite comport with the facts. As far as I know some staffers discussed (via email) tactics they could use against Bernie (calling him out for suspected atheism) but they never did.

The limiting of the number of debates was (IMO) definitely done to protect HRC. Anyway, my point is that there is agreement between Willis and me in regards to DWS stacking the deck against Bernie Sanders. I don't know why he would give a crap, however, given his intense hate for Bernie Sanders.

Where I take exception to what Willis wrote, however, is in regards to this "warning" bullshit. Unless he's talking about how he and a (former) frequent commenter on his blog "warned" the Left in regards to how ugly they both believe DWS is.

This exchange, for example (comments attached to a post by Hart titled "Democratic Congressional Bimbo Eruptions").

Rusty Shackelford: She may very well be a nice person... but Debbie Wasserman Schultz is one homely woman. (11/14/2012 AT 8:01pm).

Willis Hart: You and I are going arm and arm straight to hell, Russ. You do know that, right? (11/14/2012 AT 8:02pm).

Willis Hart (an atheist) doesn't believe in hell. That line is his way of saying he appreciates what Rusty said about DWS being "homely". No, no warnings of treachery here. Only comments from two misogynist assholes concerning the appearance of a female Democratic politician they don't like.

If someone can point me to a WTNPH commentary in which he issues any kind of warning regarding DWS... go ahead, I CHALLENGE you to find one. Me, I can't recall a single conversation in which DWS's name came up where Rusty Shackelford did not immediately refer to her as ugly and Willis Hart did not gleefully agree.

BTW, in regards to DWS stacking the deck against Sanders, this is an issue that Bernie supporters did discuss. The fact is that I "warned" that DWS was "busily stacking the deck against Bernie Sanders in an effort to pave the way for Hillary Clinton" on my blog (and can point to the posts). Whereas the Hartster's warnings DO NOT EXIST! He never warned about squat regarding DWS. Never. Unless you believe his and Rusty's Shackelford's exchanges regarding DWS being a dumb ugly bimbo count as "warnings". Obviously, if we are to elect women to congress, they need to be a lot hotter.

"I tried to warn the left about this treacherous rodent but they wouldn't listen" is a LIE. Or perhaps a self delusion. Completely untrue in any case.

Image: WikiLeaks email release proves that, under chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, there was a distinct pro-Hillary bias. A bias that took the form of discussions of how to harm the Bernie Sanders campaign. Although no action seems to have been taken, the DNC is SUPPOSED to be neutral! (4 Most Damaging Emails From the DNC WikiLeaks Dump).

OST #164

Monday, July 25, 2016

On If The Conservative Elite Was Put in Charge of Patrolling America's Most Dangerous Inner-Cities

Oh, they'd be gunning down young black men left and right. You kidding me (the fact that they're racist, cowardly, hypocritical, etc. and would probably shoot out of fear anything that moved)?

Racist Libertarians like the blogger Willis Hart, while not among the "elite", would react in the same matter, IMO.

BTW, Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, previously ran as the "law and order" candidate (Wikipedia: Johnson's campaign... platform emphasized tax cuts, job creation, state government spending growth restraint, and law and order). And, as we know, Donald Trump is going around saying he's the "law and order" candidate.

"Law and order" being code for getting tough with the BLACK criminals. That being a message that rich racist Whites like.

Image: Willis "White Privilege Is A Myth" Hart reading the newspaper (cartoon depiction). "Another Black man put down by the police? Meh. He likely deserved it or otherwise brought it on himself" is usually his reaction.

OST #163

Saturday, July 23, 2016

On Willis Hart Defending Milo Yiannopoulos, A Misogynist Jackass With A History Of Encouraging His Twitter Followers To Harass Women

Willis Hart defends the "journalist, entrepreneur and technology editor for" in a recent commentary.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Twitter Had to Be Sued Before They Took Down the Tens of Thousands of ISIS Related Accounts but Didn't Hesitate One Second to Ban Milo Yiannopoulos Over Some Racist Tweets that His Followers Were Dishing Out.

The hypocrisy and double-standards of the left are really starting to reach critical-mass, I think, with this being a perfect example. I mean, we're talking about fucking ISIS here, for Christ. (7/21/2016 AT 3:58pm).

The lawsuit says Twitter knowingly permitted terrorists to use their network. However, according to Fortune magazine, such lawsuits (there have been a few) are likely to fail.

In any case, Hart's criticism involved Twitter not being vigilant enough in policing their membership and taking down such accounts when they find them. That is likely a valid criticism. I wouldn't know, as I haven't been following that story.

But is Twitter part of "the Left"? Willis asserts that Twitter is. A 7/20/2016 Washington Times article describes Twitter as a "progressive-leaning social media company". So, OK, they're part of "the Left". "Proof" they're out to get this Milo Yiannopoulos jackass? Or maybe they just banned him after issuing multiple warnings and suspending him temporarily several times.

The first suspension came in December of 2015 Twitter decided on because of Yiannopoulos' history of encouraging his followers to attack women (via tweet).

[Previously Yiannopoulos] told a female journalist that she "deserved to be harassed" in response to her complaints about threatening messages she had been receiving due to an article Yiannopoulus had written about her. (Wikipedia/Milo Yiannopoulos/Social Media).

Clearly his followers got the message after this incident. And, telling someone they "deserved to be harassed" sounds like a violation of Twitter's "speech and harassment codes" to me.

Yiannopoulos was suspended again in (June 2016) after "criticism of Islam [following] the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting". Then came the 3rd strike less than a month later!

Yiannopoulos was permanently suspended from Twitter on 7/19/2016, after he and other users of the site participated in abuse towards Ghostbusters actress Leslie Jones. Yiannopoulos had published a critical review of the film the day prior to being banned. Shortly before the ban, he directly attacked Jones, calling her "barely literate" and describing her as a man. It was also alleged that he was orchestrating abuse.

...Twitter stated that "no one deserves to be subjected to targeted abuse online, and our rules prohibit inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others. ... We know many people believe we have not done enough to curb this type of behavior on Twitter. We agree". (Wikipedia/Milo Yiannopoulos/Social Media).

Yiannopoulos' response to the lifetime ban was to cry about bias against Conservatives, claiming that "Twitter has confirmed itself as a safe space for Muslim terrorists and Black Lives Matter extremists, but a no-go zone for conservatives".

Right. Even though this misogynist jackass had been warned twice previously. This, btw, is a common Conservative tactic. It's called working the refs. This tactic involves "complaining constantly about liberal media bias in an attempt to bully reporters and obtain more favorable coverage for their side".

But Yiannopoulos was banned because he deserved to be banned. According to a 7/20/2016 TIME story his "reputation as a troll on Twitter has long eclipsed his journalism" and [re his trolling] he calls himself the "most fabulous supervillain on the Internet".

Although that Willis Hart would take his side is not surprising, given how Yiannopoulos describes himself ideologically and politically.

He rose to notability that year when he began to provide media coverage and commentary surrounding the Gamergate controversy (a controversy that concerned issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture, stemming from a harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate). As a self-identified homosexual, "cultural libertarian" and "free speech fundamentalist", he is a vocal critic of third wave feminism, Islam, social justice theory, political correctness and other movements and ideologies he perceives to be authoritarian and regressive. (Wikipedia/Milo Yiannopoulos).

So he's a hater of Black Lives Matter, Radical Marxist Feminists and SJWs just like the Hartster. There is no "double standard" at play here. All that happened was that a jerk and ACKNOWLEDGED troll who had been warned twice before, broke the rules again (making it clear that he had no intention of behaving himself), and was banned for life. As he should have been. End of story.

The only double standard here is that Willis wouldn't be complaining if it were a Leftist who was banned. Although, IMO, Conservatives are more likely to run into these kind of problems because they're so much more intolerant than Liberals. Most of their whines re "Liberal intolerance" concerning Liberal "intolerance" of Conservative bigotry and hate.

Proof that this is the truth are these "religious liberty" laws that Conservative legislatures have been trying to pass. Anti-gay, anti-transgender laws/sentiments that Willis Hart has defended by the way (with commentaries such as "On Making the Planet Safe from Christian Bakers"). This from a guy who claims that he's "socially tolerant". Bullshit!

Supporting Document
[DSD #30] Fanboy Outrage Re Milo Yiannopoulos (A Hard Right Jackass) Being Banned From Twitter (catalouge of WTNPH commentaries in which he defends a misogynist ass because he agrees with this far right views).

Image: Ben Garrison hearts Milo Yiannopoulos. Because they're both misogynist assholes (would be my guess). In this cartoon Ben depicts knight Milo battling the evil SJW hydra.

OST #162

Thursday, July 21, 2016

Men Have Better Brains Than Chicks & Larry Summers, As Prez Of Harvard, Was Fired For Pointing Out This Fact (Misogynist Blogger Sez)

STEM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. Women are not as good as men in these fields. That's just genetics. Or so says the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that (According to Numerous Researchers; Voyer, Voyer, Bryden, Lytton, Romney, Pinker, etc.) A) Men Appear to Have Better 3-D Mental Transformations (i.e., Spatial Abilities) and Mathematics Problem-Solving Skills than Women Do and B) These Differences Are at Least Partially Genetic.

So Larry Summers got shit-canned from Harvard back in 2006 for telling the truth, in other words. Gotta love it.

P.S. And yes, these of course are averages. A lot of girls do well in math and the physical sciences and we should appreciate them as well (they also score better than men on many verbal indices and perhaps that's the reason why they gravitate more toward social work and education than the STEM fields). (5/31/2016 AT 5:13pm).

First of all, former Secretary of the Treasury (under Bill Clinton) Larry Summers was NOT fired from Harvard for "telling the truth".

According to the following Wikipedia excerpt, the speech (the one in which he "told the truth") was only one factor (and may actually not been a factor at all).

Following the end of Clinton's term, Summers served as the 27th President of Harvard University from 2001 to 2006. Summers resigned as Harvard's president in the wake of a no-confidence vote by Harvard faculty, which resulted in large part from: Summers's conflict with Cornel West; financial conflict of interest questions regarding his relationship with Andrei Shleifer; and a 2005 speech in which he suggested that the underrepresentation of women in science and engineering could be due to a "different availability of aptitude at the high end", and less to patterns of discrimination and socialization (Wikipedia/Lawrence Summers).

I say "may not have been a factor at all" because nobody knows why each individual Harvard faculty member voted the way they did. IMO it was the "conflict of interest questions regarding his relationship with Andrei Shleifer" that probably lead to the "no confidence" more than any other factor.

Some people still think Larry Summers got fired from being the president of Harvard because of the ridiculous comments he made about women in math... or because of the comments he made about Cornel West. Actually, the truth is something worse, and for which he should actually be in jail.

Summers was directly involved with defrauding the U.S. Government... and Russia. He admitted to not understand conflict of interest issues. ... So why did Summers lose his job at Harvard? It was because of his protecting a buddy, a fellow economist at Harvard named Andrei Shleifer. Shleifer got in trouble, and the US Government sued and won against Harvard and Shleifer... Harvard was required to pay $26.5 million to the U.S. government, Shleifer $2 million... (Why Larry Summers lost the presidency of Harvard by Cathy O'Neil. Mathbabe 3/11/2012).

You can read the article for the details (my excerpt would have to be a LOT longer to fully explain what happened). The important thing to note is that "Summers was good friends with this criminal [Andrei Shleifer], and used his position to protect him".

Summers was "shit-canned" (resigned after a no confidence vote) for protecting the job of his friend, a friend who had cost Harvard "$26.5 million and legal fees estimated at between $10 million and $15 million for legal violations".

I don't know about you, but I think a 36.5 to 41 million dollar loss is more likely the reason than the speech, regardless of whether or not it was the "truth".

Secondly, as far as the underrepresentation of Women in the STEM fields being due to genetics or not, my judgement is... it could be a factor. But there are other factors. Wikipedia notes that "scholars are exploring the various reasons for the existence of this gender gap in STEM fields. [There are a] number of biological, structural, and social-psychological explanations".

But Willis (in a number of posts on his blog) points only to research from academics who look at the possible biological reasons. "Men have better brains" seems (to me) to be the point he's trying to make. A point that would be in line with the many other misogynistic commentaries he's authored on his blog.

Supporting Document
[DSD #27] Men's Brains Are Better Than Women's Brains (catalouge of WTNPH commentaries in which he makes this implicit argument).

OST #161

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Regarding WTNPH Usage Of The Term "Social Justice Warrior" As A Pejorative (In Agreement With Slimeball Ben Garrison)

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart (no surprise) subscribes to the pejoritive usage of the term "social justice warrior". In the past the term "had been used to refer to Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr [re] their efforts on behalf of social justice". Social justice being defined as "the fair and just relation between the individual and society [which] is measured [by looking at] distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges".

Sounds good, right? I mean, a wide gulf between the poor and the wealthy is not considered a desirable thing (How income inequality hurts America). One of the points of pride for the United States being the fact that we have a strong, powerful and vibrant middle class. Or we used to, at least (it has been eroding ever since the election of Ronald Reagan).

But being called a "Social Justice Warrior" is now an insult. At least when flug by those on the Right. Wikipedia notes that it is "a pejorative term for an individual promoting socially progressive views; including feminism, civil rights, multiculturalism, political correctness, and identity politics".

Willis Hart being opposed to all of these. His opposition taking the form of commentaries on his blog. Misogynist tirades deriding the radical Marxist feminists (AKA feminazis) as well as racist screeds decrying the Black Lives Matter movement (how dare Black people complain about the fact that they're 300% more likely to be shot by the police than a White person).

If you read Hart's blog, you'll find that he believes that political correctness is "bald, unadulterated, virulent tyranny".

Tyranny? Or is Hart "pushing the term in order to divert attention from more substantive matters of discrimination and as part of a broader culture war against liberalism"? (which according to Wikipedia, "commentators on the left have said").

Yes; I think they say this because it's true. According to Conservatives it's intolerant when a Liberal points out a Conservative's intolerance (intolerance of intolerance is intolerant) and "tyranny" when the force of law is used to protect minority rights.

Regarding the "broader culture war against liberalism", Willis Hart uses tactics of the Right and directs his anger most frequently at the Left. Ironic on a blog called "Contra O'Reilly" that Willis too is a culture warrior. Although he dispenses with the defense of "traditionalism" (except when it comes to his transphobia or defense of bakers to not be forced to produce a gay wedding cake) and Christianity (Bill O'Reilly's war on Christmas being one example). Because Hart is a non-believer.

But both Willis and culture warriors on the Right like O'Reilly hate the Left (Progressives, IMO, easily beating out Neocons as the source of the bulk of his ire). And he employs many of the Right's buzzwords. Marxist feminists (women for pay equality who speak against our rape culture, etc), minstrels (Black Liberals with a media platform), Warmists (people who believe in science re AGW) as well as others I'm likely overlooking.

And now (to add to that list) he employes (as a pejorative) "Social Justice Warrior" (SJW).

Willis Hart: Like with this Garrison fellow who did the Michelle Obama looking like a power-forward cartoon (which, yes, was somewhat distasteful but then a great amount of satire tends to be - HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!). The SJWs went after him full-bore (he even got death-threats which makes SJWs no better than al Qaeda) and now he's more popular than ever. Oops, OOOOOOOOPS. (5/31/2016 AT 5:13pm).

I don't know about death threats against Garrison. I'll believe Willis that there have been some. Although I'd point out that ALL that this proves is that there are nuts of all political persuasions. But Willis uses the (supposed) death threats to paint ALL SJWs as "no better than al Qaeda".

FYI, Willis, al Qaeda ACTUALLY kills people, whereas people who respond badly to slimes such as Ben Garrison hardly ever follow through. Not that death threats are OK (they aren't), but I'd be ASTOUNDED if (we later found out) that anyone who (supposedly) made such a threat then proceeded to (attempt) to carry it out (it's all hyperbole, or "an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally"). Unlike the Taliban. Who threaten people with death... and then kill them.

Secondly, Willis' description of Garrison's cartoon as "Michelle Obama looking like a power-forward" and "somewhat distasteful", is highly offensive. IMO and in the opinion of many others, I'm sure (see OST #148 for my expanded commentary on Garrison's racist, misogynistic and transphobic cartoon).

Although, that Willis cheers Garrison gaining popularity (supposedly) due to the outrage of SJWs, is no surprise given how much he has in common with this sack of excrement.

Ben Garrison is an American editorial cartoonist from Montana. His stated goal is "to help raise awareness of the drift toward tyranny". He is a self-described libertarian, though his cartoons tend to contain a strong paleoconservative streak as well. In his cartoons and writing on his blog, he has expressed strong opposition to Islam, political correctness, social justice warriors, neoconservatism, gun control, the Federal Reserve, [etc]. (RationalWiki/Ben Garrison).

Paleoconservatives apparently are Conservatives who have gone back to the roots of Conservatism. The roots being the belief that (as per RationalWiki) "more capitalism and xenophobia can solve everything". Paleoconservatives are also subscribe to religious bigotry (homophobia), nationalism, isolationism, and economic protectionism".

So, although Garrison's Paleoconservative ideology doesn't quite square with Libertarianism, it does explain explain why he is a Trump supporter. Willis Hart, as a Libertarian, rejects (or says he rejects) most of that (with the exception of worshipping capitalism). Yet he takes schadenfroh delight that the (supposed) SWJ campaign to damage Garrison's livelihood (supposedly) backfired (and benefited the dirtball Garrison instead).

What this points too, I think, are the Hartster's biases. And shows he is MUCH more strongly aligned with the Right (despite his claims of criticizing the Right and Left equally). The truth is that his criticisms are (most often) confined to anti-Neoconservative screeds. As well as screeds against anyone voicing opposition to free trade. Something the Garrison-supported Trump has done.

Trump, while he SAYS he's a "free trader", has made his opposition to "bad trade deals". Not that I disagree with Trump. I think he has a point. But Willis is NOT with Trump (or Garrison) regarding "trade". Willis being VERY much in favor of destroying American jobs via unrestricted labor offshoring/outsourcing, which is NOT THE SAME thing as trade.

My point is that Willis has PLENTY he could disagree with Garrison on, but instead he cheers Garrison's attacking SJWs over perceived injustices (re people's RIGHT to protest via boycott) and laughs at the (supposed) backfiring of anti-BG SJW efforts.

Although, as far as Libertarians being "socially liberal", I think that is debatable. As I pointed out, Willis FREQUENTLY comes back to the topic of "Christian" business owners discriminating against gay customers (he thinks they have the right to do so), etc.

And Libertarians are HUGE on the idea that the minimum wage should be done away with so African American workers can be hired for lower wages than White workers. Because they believe Black labor is less valuable than White labor (DSB #2). Although they frame it as labor union racism. In the past "lily-white union schmucks" negotiated for higher pay thereby freezing out Black labor which is worth less (See WTNP post Waging Wages for an example of what I'm talking about).

So, maybe Hart and Garrison have a LOT more in common than one might think. Because a lot of Libertarians are really not that "socially tolerant" (The Ben Garrison and Willis Hart types). Which is why I speculated that Willis might vote for Donald Trump (OST #158). But, hey, I'm sure Gary Johnson despises SJWs a lot too. Because Gandhi and MLK were actually total dicks. Poor laborers SHOULDN'T be exploited to further enrich the oligarchs? Come on!

Image: Ben Garrison cartoon that depicts Donald Trump as... the adult in the room?

OST #160

Thursday, July 14, 2016

Willis Hart Piling On The Strawmen In A Racist Commentary Re Yet Another Black Man Shot By Police

I think the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart has made it very clear that he has no problem with cops shooting Black suspects. Armed or unarmed. Even running away (and shot in the back), he has only ever criticized either the victim, protesters who object to the killing, or the media for how they've handled the killing.

Not once has he EVER defended the victim. Case in point - regarding the shooting of Philando Castile by Jeronimo Yanez, Hart's reaction is to post a strawman-laden commentary. (And he also attaches a meme that, when I searched for it, I found a couple of very racist/bigoted commentators who agreed with Mr. Hart... see image below).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that the Leftist Media Is Doing its Damnedest to Hide the Fact that the Cop Who Shot Castile in Minnesota Is Mexican. And try calling this fellow a "white Hispanic" (in an effort to preserve the narrative of white racist cops killing innocent young black men for no reason whatsoever). I dare you to. (7/12/2016 AT 10:01 PM).

If the Leftist media is "doing it damnedest to hide the fact that the cop who shot Castile is Mexican" where is the proof? You'd think if the Leftist media were doing this, Willis would be able to come up with ONE example.

In any case, the fact that the officer is Mexican-American doesn't mean that prejudice (against African Americans) couldn't have been a factor. As reported, Jeronimo Yanez, the St. Anthony MN police officer who shot and killed Philando Castile, pulled over Castile because he thought he looked like a robbery suspect "because of the wide-set nose".

Of course this remark does not mean there was any racial prejudice at play, but it does say to me that there might have been. In any case I think he clearly overreacted.

[As per the video shot by Castile's girlfriend Diamond Reynolds] Reynolds stated that Yanez "asked him for license and registration. He told him that it was in his wallet, but he had a pistol on him because he's licensed to carry". The officer said, Don't move. As he was putting his hands back up, the officer shot him in the arm 4 or 5 times". Reynolds tells the officer: "You shot four bullets into him, sir. He was just getting his license and registration, sir". On the video, Reynolds says "Please don't tell me he's dead", while Yanez screams: "I told him not to reach for it! I told him to get his hand open!"

If someone is going to shoot you, It seems absurd to me that they'd first tell you they have a gun. Seems to me that Castile shouldn't have mentioned the gun. Because as soon as he did the officer panicked and shot him. Possibly due to racial prejudices or institutional racism (trained to view Blacks as criminals).

As for the "narrative", it isn't that "White racist cops killing innocent young black men for no reason whatsoever" (another strawman). It is that cops (no matter their race) are shooting Black suspects at a rate disproportionate to White suspects.

In 2015, The WP launched a real-time database to track fatal police shootings, and the project continues this year. As of [7/10/2016], 1,502 people have been shot and killed by on-duty police officers since 1/1/2015. Of them, 732 were white, and 381 were black (and 382 were of another or unknown race). But... comparing how many or how often white people are killed by police to how many or how often black people are killed by the police is statistically dubious unless you first adjust for population.

According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62% of the U.S. population but only about 49% of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24% of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13% of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers. (Aren't more white people than black people killed by police? Yes, but no. by Wesley Lowery. The Washington Post 7/11/2016).

Finally, I SERIOUSLY doubt that anyone is going to refer to Yanez as a "White Hispanic", despite Hart's "dare" (AKA strawman attempt to link this shooting to the police identifying George Zimmerman as White).

I would dare Willis Hart to stop it with the strawmen, but I know such a dare would be pointless. He is clearly NEVER going to stop. Especially when it comes to Blacks being shot by the police. Because the dude is strongly racist. He actually wrote (re Blacks being killed by the police) "I'm actually quite insulted that this bullshit is being placed not just at my doorstep but the law enforcement community's".

Yeah, Black people being killed by the police is "bullshit" and the Hartster is clearly angry that the Black Lives Matter movement exists and is "insulted" that it's objecting to members of their community being gunned down BY THE POLICE at a rate 2.5 times higher than for Whites. Police killings SHOULDN'T be placed at the law enforcement community's doorstep???? What?!!

No, sorry, but law enforcement needs to answer for ALL the people they kill. Justified or unjustified. And it's the ones in that last category that BLM is concerned about and protest (killings that appear to not be justified). They don't protest when the police kill someone and it's clearly justified.

So WTF is Hart's beef? Apparently his primary argument is that since Black people kill other Black people at a rate greater than Whites killing Whites - that somehow gives police a free pass?!! That BLM has no right to protest. But how the hell are criminals killing people in any way the same as law enforcement killing people?

Clearly Hart's argument is a specious one. "STOP BLOWING YOUR FUCKING BRAINS OUT" he yells (copied from his blog as he wrote it... in all caps). As if innocent Black victims are responsible for getting killed by Black criminals.

Image: Found on the website F169BBS along with the caption "Remember, kids - there is absolutely no low that niggers, jews, faggots, and liberals will not go". Also found on "The Last American Newspaper" attached to an article that claims "the media and political manipulators want the Blacks and Mexicans to love another and stick together so they can be more easily manipulated come vote time by the politicians" ("explaining why the media is "hiding" the race of Yanez). Apparently this conspiracy involves a US census form. Concerning this form, the author remarks "I will bet my bottom dollar a Jew or two were involved in the creation of [it]". Does it say something about Willis Hart that this meme (which he obviously agrees with) can be found on two CLEARLY racist/bigoted sites? I say yes. No, I actually say HELL YES!

OST #159

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Is Willis Hart Going To Vote For Donald Trump?

Seems that one of the (former?) buddies of the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart thinks he might.

Dennis Marks: Maybe Will "Get No Readers" Hart is a Trump fan? I have no idea, but I would not be surprised. But it seems that his number of yearly posts is inversely proportional to the number of commenters. (7/1/2016 AT 08:23:00 PM EDT).

Actually, no. Willis has said a number of times that he's voting for Gary Johnson. Likely because agrees with Dennis that "Gary Johnson is a fine candidate [because] his views reflect a concern for the rights of every single American, and not a tiny handful of plutocrats".

That Gary Johnson isn't in favor of handing off as much power as possible to the plutocrats is complete BS, of course (The True History of Libertarianism in America: A Phony Ideology to Promote a Corporate Agenda). Point is, Willis and Dennis both like Johnson and dislike Trump.

Or so I thought. Dennis (in the comment I just quoted) also says (re Johnson) "I wish he counted for more than a spoiler"... and Willis recently posted a comment in which he agrees (says Johnson "isn't viable"). This despite him previously (on 5/4/2016) writing "I'm begging you, at least consider voting for Johnson".

Willis Hart: My personal suspicion is that Donald isn't an anti-Semite and that the guy just mindlessly (this being the operant word) re-tweets this shit (this one I gather coming from some alt-right anti-Jew web-site). But either way (bad judgement versus bigotry) it's bad for the fella' in that it makes it difficult for folks like me who detest Hillary and who would like a viable alternative (Johnson's a good guy but he isn't viable) to even consider voting for him. EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. (7/6/2016 AT 4:59 PM).

So, it's "difficult" for Willis to consider voting Trump? Notice that he said difficult and NOT impossible. Not impossible because (as Willis has said) "I'm not a huge Trump supporter" (an exact quote). Not a HUGE supporter being a far cry away from being opposed.

And, there is also the fact that the Hartster has defended Trump a LOT more than he's harshly criticized him. Most criticisms being incredibly mild. He even downplayed Trump's racist comments by referring to them as impolitic!

So there's Hart's defense of Trump, his not being a "huge" Trump supporter (implying there is a small amount of support), and the fact that Hart acknowledges Johnson is not viable...

On the other hand, Connecticut (the state WTNPH lives in), hasn't gone Republican in 20 years. So he could vote for Gary Johnson and not feel guilty about possibly having helped Hillary Win (she will probably take CT anyway).

That would be the ONLY reason I can conceive of that he'd vote for Trump (to stop Hillary). Although remember that he did say that he REALLY wishes he could vote for Trump. Because Trump is viable while Johnson is not. So... he might vote for Trump despite it being difficult? Because he does support Trump (just not hugely)?

Yeah, I think he might. In any case, I think it's quite clear he was full of crap when he said that, if a gun were held to his head and he was forced to choose between Hillary and Donald... that he'd probably have to pick Hillary. Sure.

Image: Pro-Trump/Anti-Hillary cartoon from Ben Garrison. Garrison is a racist and misogynistic Libertarian who has has expressed strong opposition to Islam, political correctness, social justice warriors (SJW/SJW's), neoconservatism, and gun control. He has a lot in common with Willis Hart in other words. With the exception of Garrison being a STRONG Trump supporter, whereas Hart says "I'm not a huge Trump supporter"... implying there is some support (further evidence of there being some support being WTNPH's many posts defending Trump).

OST #158

Sunday, July 10, 2016

Why Do Libertarians Support Brexit?

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart came out in favor of Brexit (United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union) in a 7/4/2016 commentary, although I'm not sure why (as I noted in OST #155).

Willis Hart: On Slant-Headed British Millennials Who Are Trying to Equate Britain's Leaving the European Union with Fascism... So, giving more and more power to some distant and corrupt central authority ISN'T fascism but self determination is. Man oh man is this current generation ever dumb. (7/4/2016 AT 8:35pm).

OK, so the "distant and corrupt central authority" would be the Institutions of the European Union... I suppose. But what proof does Willis have that any/all of the seven principal decision making bodies of the European Union are corrupt? Also, why is giving power to these bodies bad, but giving power to the WTO (the intergovernmental organization which regulates international trade) OK?

And, speaking of trade, how is opposition to free trade "nationalism", while support for Brexit isn't? I mean, MANY of the supporters of Brexit voted YES because they wanted the brown/Muslim people to leave. That's why many in the media are making a comparison between Brexit and the rise of Trump. Not that I think these comparisons are entirely valid (I think there is more to it), but I'd have guessed that because he's in favor of "free trade", he'd also oppose Brexit.

Because Brexit allows workers from lower wage European countries to travel to Britain and accept jobs for less than a British worker might expect/need. It would be similar to if the United States opened up the border between us and Mexico and (instead of Mexicans crossing the border illegally and working here illegally) as many Mexicans as wanted to could cross the border legally and legally accept US jobs.

Something the perennial Libertarian candidate for President Gary Johnson says he is in favor of. Gary Johnson's official positions page quotes him as saying "yes, we should have open borders". Yet, apparently Gary Johnson (same as Willis Hart) is in favor of Brexit? According to Johnson, the UK rejected "crony capitalism" by choosing to leave the European Union. And therefore he "hailed the outcome of the Brexit vote".

Now, like with Willis Hart who makes allegations of "corruption" which left me wondering WHAT corruption he was referring to (after reading his blog post), I am now wonder WHAT crony capitalism Johnson is talking about (the author of the article I linked to above does not address the question).

So, while I agree with both Hart and Johnson on Brexit (on the YES vote part), I'm guessing I'd disagree with their reasoning (WHY they'd have voted yes). My suspicion is that Hart and Johnson's opposition stems from the fact that the oligarchs aren't DIRECTLY in control of everything. And that they like the open borders but dislike the Institutions of the European Union making the rules (which I'm guessing is where the "crony capitalism" comes into play).

And, while I'm not saying there is no corruption or crony capitalism (as I'm not familiar with the institutions in question AT ALL), there is (at least a patina of) democratic control when it comes to the Institutions of the European Union. Which Libertarians absolutely can NOT stand. The "self determination" the Hartster refers to being code for rich people doing the determining (as opposed to citizens democratically doing the determining).

OST #157

Thursday, July 7, 2016

In What Bizarro Universe Should HRC Be Prosecuted For Having A Private email Server Even Though She Did't Break The Law?

In the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart's Bizarro universe, apparently. And he also thinks that because Republican FBI Director James Comey decided not to prosecute HRC that "someone got to him".

Willis Hart: On the Fact that in FBI Director James Comey's Bizarro Universe, the Terms "Extremely Careless" and "Gross Negligence" Are World's Apart... Somebody got to him. And if you listen to the man's presentation, everything that he said pointed straight to a recommendation to indict (the fact that dozens of these messages were considered classified AT THE TIME, the fact that her server wasn't even as secure as Gmail, his admission that other people would have been penalized for these transgressions, etc.). And then, kaboom, nothing!!! Oh well, time to move on, I guess. (7/6/2016 AT 5:17pm).

So previously Willis indicated that he was positive that HRC would be forced to run her campaign from a prison cell, meaning she would be prosecuted and convicted before voting in November of 2016 (OST #133). Now that that has not happened (which I predicted it would not) Willis thinks "someone got to him"?!

No, the reason HRC isn't being prosecuted is because she did not break the law. As he indicated in testimony today (7/7/2016) before the House Oversight Committee, chaired by Jason Chaffetz. (Note: audio clips sourced from The Stephanie Miller Show 7/7/2016 and transcribed by me).


Jason Chaffetz: Did Hillary Clinton break the law?

James Comey: In connection with her use of the email server? My judgement is that she did not.

Jason Chaffetz: You're just not able to prosecute it, or did Hillary Clinton break the law?

James Comey: I don't want to give an overly lawyerly answer, but the question I always look at is - is there evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that someone engaged in conduct that violated a criminal statute. And my judgement here is that there is not.


James Comey: When I look at the facts we gathered here, as I said, I see evidence of great carelessness, but I do not see evidence that is sufficient to establish that Secretary Clinton, or those with those whom she was corresponding, both talked about classified information on email, and knew when they did it they were doing something that was against the law.

So, given that assessment of the facts [and] my understanding of the law, my conclusion was (and remains) no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. No reasonable prosecutor would bring the 2nd case in a hundred years focused on gross negligence. So I know that's been a source of confusion for some folks. That's just the way it is. I know the Department of Justice, I know no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. I know a lot of my former friends are out there saying they would. I wonder where they were the last 40 years, because I'd like to see the cases they brought on gross negligence. Nobody would and nobody did. (Audio clips via the Stephanie Miller Show 7/7/2016, Transcribed by me).

Stephanie Miller (on the 7/6 edition of her show) informed her listeners and viewers there would be no charges because "the case lacked the aggravating factors that have lead prosecutors to press charges in the past. Comey noted those previously charged in such instances intentionally or willfully mishandled classified information, or did so in such vast quantities that they must have known what they were doing...".

In addition SM noted (quoting an AP story) that such mishandling of information was routine and "consistent with the State Department culture over the past 2 administrations".

So, the standard (regarding decisions on whether or not to bring charges) is (apparently) not "gross negligence" but whether or not the person violated the rules intentionally. Although Willis is clearly convinced that the standard is Gross Negligence alone.

But it isn't. HRC did not break the law because there was no intent. End of story.

The only reason the Hartster finds this "bizarre" is because he strongly dislikes HRC and desperately wanted to see here prosecuted. BTW, that the bush administration also mishandled sensitive information? Yeah, that happened. And the bush White House also deleted a 22 million emails ("a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act") in a successful attempt to coverup election fraud - AG Alberto Gonzales fired US attorneys who wouldn't investigate fake/non-existent voter fraud cases (SWTD #331).

What's truly bizarre IMO is that Gonzales was pressured to step down. And then, kaboom, nothing! This when the evidence CLEARLY pointed to INTENTIONAL violations of the law (bushie attempts to manipulate the vote to get gwb re-elected).

And the main reason this HRC email server controversy went as far as it did - a fricking FBI investigation (when there was no investigation re actual bushie crimes) is because Republicans use EVERY opportunity to attack Democrats. And refuse to stop even when THEIR OWN investigations conclude that Democrats did nothing wrong.

They just "investigate" again (and again, and again)! This explains the 13 published reports on Benghazi. All of which found that there was no "stand down" order, no intelligence failure leading to the Benghazi tradegy, and no administrative wrongdoing (Benghazi By The Numbers).

Now I hear that Congressional Republicans plan to appoint a special prosecutor to further investigate HRC re her private email server. And the FACT that the purpose of this "investigation", JUST LIKE the Benghazi "investigation" was to politically harm HRC's presidential campaign (Republican Whistleblower Confirms Benghazi Investigation Is Illegally Targeting Clinton).

And yet, the outrage of Willis concerns ONLY these fake HRC scandals (he's also quite outraged re HRC/Benghazi) and not the fact that these "investigations" are purely political? And illegal, given that it's a violation of federal law (31 U.S.C. § 1301) to use official government resources for political purposes.

OST #156. See also SWTD #338.

Tuesday, July 5, 2016

Confusion Over Who Benefits From "Free Trade"

Actually I think it's delusion. That or wealth worshipping. I'm talking about the following commentary from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that While We Generally Agree that Most Financial Transactions Are Beneficial to Both Sides, Every Microbe of that Wisdom Seems To Get Jettisoned Out the Window When the Participants Are from Different Countries... Welcome to the new nationalism (which really isn't all that different from the old if the truth was known; Lincoln, Hoover, etc.), Donald Trump style. (7/4/2016 AT 8:35pm).

Actually, no. I don't agree that most financial transactions are beneficial to both sides. Many are, but many are not. Although that isn't the statement I take exception to. "When the participants are from different countries" is what I object to. Willis refers to trade, but most of the time what's going on is labor offshoring. Which is when an American company either (1) builds a factory in a low wage country to manufacture goods for import to the US, or (2) contracts with a factor located in a low wage country to manufacture goods for import into the US. Either way what we're really talking about is sending jobs that used to be done by Americans to a low wage country, and NOT trade.

I suppose you could say that both sides benefit, in that the oligarchs here make more money because their labor costs are reduced dramatically. And their environmental protection compliance costs are often reduced as well (as these regulations are usually weaker in 3rd world countries). And (on the other side) overseas workers get crappy jobs (long hours/low pay) that sometimes leads to their deaths (factories collapsing/suicide). And the higher ups (factory supervisors) probably get paid a little more.

And American consumers get prices that are a little lower. This is the main "benefit" that "free traders" like Willis refer to. Even though American workers are getting screwed. So, regarding this "benefit", the question is if the lower prices are worth the lost jobs (jobs the "free traders" say will be offset by jobs created when we export to our trading partners).

Unfortunately, the facts clearly show the negatives outweigh the positives. All one has to do is look at the growing US trade deficit to debunk this Libertarian BS. If Willis were talking about balanced trade I'd have to agree with me. But he isn't. He's referring to a system under which products that used to be manufactured in the United States no longer are (labor offshoring that results in lost US jobs) and imbalanced trade (we import much more than we export. A fact that blows away the free trader argument that says jobs created in the export sector will offset jobs lost).

Clearly it's the so-called free traders who are jettisoning every microbe of wisdom... or are they? I mean, if you look at who REALLY benefits (the oligarch) then the trade liberalization position makes total sense.

As for Donald Trump's opposition to free trade... this is one area where I think he's right. Although he is playing to the racists with this issue. The "brown people are taking our jobs" meme. But someone can be opposed to labor offshoring and unbalanced corporate managed trade for reasons other than racism. Reasons including the fact that this kind of trade mainly benefits the oligarchs.

The Trump voters don't see who is really benefiting (of course). In their eyes the brown people (and Asian people) are to blame. As opposed to the oligarchs. So, when Willis refers to "the new nationalism:", does he mean standing up to oligarchy? Of course not. But he's a deluded stooge.

Although, apparently he wouldn't have voted YES on Brexit, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. There were racists who voted YES on Brexit because the wanted the foreigners out of Britain (so those voters were motivated by nationalism). Why express opposition to nationalism in regards to "free trade" but support in regards to the Brexit?

And post Brexit laborers willing to work for less than British citizens can no longer enter the country freely. That being the case, I would have guessed the Hartster would have been opposed to Brexit. The only explanation I can come up with is... man oh man are these Libertarians ever dumb (See OST #155).

OST #155

Sunday, July 3, 2016

On The Libertarian Concept of Giving To The Oligarchs Infinite & Unchecked Power

At the end of the Libertarian hero Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, a socialist dystopian government is overthrown and replaced with oligarchy. During the "transition" millions of non-rich folks (whom Rand refers to as parasites) are killed (or exterminated) when the selfish rich f*ckers "go on strike" and civilization collapses.

Proving that the Libertarian idea of "utopia" is mass death for all who are not wealthy (AKA "moochers"). Given this fact, I say we only entertain such nonsense at our peril, as going full Libertarian would surely involve counting the body-bags, coffins, mass-graves, etc.

The Ayn-Rand-worshipping Libertarian blogger Willis Hart, in typical Randian fashion, frequently extresses his hatred for democracy (WTNPH: "democracies have a penchant to devour themselves"). These screeds usually taking the form of condemnation as "teft" that people might vote for "free stuff" that increases taxes on wealthier people.

In a recent commentary, Willis clearly alludes to the Randian idea that democracy leads to totalitarianism.

Willis Hart: On the Concept of Giving to the Government Infinite and Unchecked Power... At one's peril, would be strong advice (that along with counting the body-bags, coffins, mass-graves, etc.) (7/2/2016 AT 3:13pm).

Yeah, his post is a little vague, but how else could one GIVE a government "infinite and unchecked power" if not by voting for it? Obviously, if he wasn't referring to democracy he'd have used the word TAKEN. You could argue that "giving" of such power could occur after a revolution, but I'm going with this being an anti-democracy screed, given his FREQUENT lamenting of people voting for "free stuff" (WTNPH: "people when given the choice will almost always vote for those who promise them the most while making others pay for it").

Hate of democracy and love of oligarchy is, in fact, a major theme in Atlas Shrugged (here, the author of the article I quote refers to Rand's defense of monopoly).

The way the villains of Atlas Shrugged accomplish their evil plan is [by] voting for it. One of the major plot elements of part I is a law called the Equalization of Opportunity Bill, which forces large companies to break themselves up, similarly to the way AT&T was split into the Baby Bells. It's passed by a majority of Congress, and Rand never implies that there's anything improper in the vote or that any dirty tricks were pulled. But because it forces her wealthy capitalist heroes to spin off some of their businesses, it's self-evident that this is the worst thing in the world and could only have been conceived of by evil socialists who hate success. (10 Things I Learned About the World from Ayn Rand's Insane Atlas Shrugged by Adam Lee. AlterNet 4/23/2014).

Although deluded Libertarians like Hart deny they favor monopoly. They actually blame monopoly on government intervention and say (without it) monopolies would never form because "companies are always trying to undercut each other but in those rare instances in which a monopoly does occur, the prices never shoot up because that would just invite new entrants to the market". (see the WTNPH post Monopoly Mythology).

Although this idea is false.

Despite what free market advocates believe, there are ways companies maintain their monopolies without governments' help. One of them is "economies of scale", where it is less costly to be big than to be small, as making a product on a massive scale is more efficient than producing just a few. This makes it almost impossible for new companies to challenge a monopoly. Those favoring the American Airlines-US Airways merger boast that airline mergers will increase economies of scale to make airfare cheaper. But if this trend continues, it is possible that we reach a point where this leads to only one remaining player in the game, having acquired all the rest.

Another danger... is that the presence of only a small number of companies would lead to price collusion, where large firms agree to maintain the price higher than the efficient price. In 1993, Kim and Singa, in a study in the American Economic Review, found that airline mergers caused prices to spike, likely due to collusion. (Free Market Supporters Always Get This One Thing Wrong by Wi Wu. Policy Mic 8/19/2013).

This fantastical idea (that free markets self regulate) is one of the primary delusions that form the basis of Libertarianism. They believe it because it justifies giving the oligarchs infinite and unchecked power. The imaginary free market will check their power, Libertarians say.

This despite the fact that "the market" wouldn't exist without governmental rules and regulations governing how it should operate. Fact is, Libertarianism is nothing but a series of nonsensical proposals used to justify the handing off of power to the oligarchs. Because if The People don't decide on these things democratically, then those with the most money will decide.

This is why, if any country ever decided to go full Libertarian, the result would SURELY be a granting of infinite and unchecked power to the oligarchs. A VERY bad concept, most people agree (explaining why Libertarian potus candidate Gary Johnson received less than 1% of the popular vote in the 2012 election).

OST #154