1285 Days Of Virulent Idiocy (The Echo Chamber Achieves Maximum Echoness)

It has been 3 years, 6 months, and 7 days since the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart banned 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. :)

OST #117

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...most of the "subprime" mortgages [AEI Fellows including Pinto] attributes to federal affordable housing policies could not have been motivated by these policies, either because the loans were ineligible (typically because they were made to higher-income borrowers) or because the lenders were not subject to these policies (such as in the case of the non-bank lenders, which did not have any applicable federal affordable housing requirements; non-bank lenders made up 24 of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006). [The fact is that] the housing bubble occurred during a period when Fannie and Freddie's market share dropped precipitously. ...central to [Pinto's] argument that affordable housing policies (including those advocated by Rep. Frank in 1992) caused the mortgage crisis is his claim that the federal government is responsible for 19.2 million "subprime" mortgages (with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being responsible for 12 million of those). But [this figure is arrived at] using [a] own made-up definition of "subprime", a definition that no one outside of [AEI] uses. ...the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has estimated that there were only 4.58 million subprime and other high risk loans outstanding, with very few of these attributable to the federal government. (For the Last Time, Fannie and Freddie Didn't Cause the Housing Crisis by David Min. The Atlantic 12/16/2011).

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

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

OST #85

The Canardo That Quacked

File this under the category of "interesting". An observation I made some time ago that was (at the time) referred to as "quacking". by "quacking" this person meant I was lying about the subject I posted on, which was an extremely hostile reaction I got after I submited a comment (as a joke) to the blog of the Libertarian Willis Hart.

Dervish Sanders on 9/29/2013: In an anti-creationist post (a position I actually agree with him on, as I believe in science over creationism, as all intelligent people do) Willis Hart wrote that there are "NO reputable scientists who still DON'T believe the earth is less than billions of years old". This, you may note, is a double negative, which means that Mr. Hart was actually saying that reputable scientists believe the earth is less than a billion years old. Another Blogger (Jerry Critter) pointed out to him that "general consensus (I know you don't like those words) puts the age of the earth at over 4 billion years". Given the double negative, Jerry thought Willis was saying the earth is less than 4 billion. But Willis said no, he had made an error (with the double negative) and he corrected it. Then I, as a joke - and as a test to see if Mr. Hart was reading comments from me... something he previously said he was not doing (he banned me from his blog and said he was deleting my comments without reading them) - submited a comment in which I said "Will tried to slip a lie by and Jerry called him on it... again!". In response to my accusation of a lie, an ANGRY Willis posted the following two comments... Willis Hart: What are you fucking talking about, you fucking piece of shit (yeah, my eyes wandered on this one)? I made a grammatical error (and even so BB knew what I was talking about) and I fixed it. What's the mother-fucking lie, you mother-fucker? (9/28/2013 AT 8:54pm) Willis Hart: See, this is the difference between you and Jerry (and why we all seem to like him and detest you). He accepts it when a person makes a mistake and doesn't go looking for some ulterior motive (probably because he isn't mildly retarded and/or paranoid) like you constantly do. You really do need to get some attention, fella'. (9/28/2013 AT 9:02pm).

Willis posted my joke comment, but went back to ignoring me after that. So I decided to respond on my own blog with the following observation.

Dervish Sanders on 9/29/2013: Wow, this Will Hart fella certainly has a temper, doesn't he? Maybe Mr. Hart should get some attention... before he hurts someone and gets in trouble with the law (I can easily see him escalating a verbal altercation into violence). In any case... the comment surely got his attention (so, the joke worked). Also (for the record) this joke is not one I'd have made normally (that is, if I were not banned from Mr. Hart's blog). So, when Mr. Hart says "this is the difference between you and Jerry", he is wrong. Back when Mr. Hart actually permitted me to comment on his blog... this isn't a comment I would have made. The comments I submit now (for the most part) are the same as when I wasn't banned, but some aren't. Hart couldn't have made this distinction (why "they" like Jerry but detest me) before because I wouldn't have made this comment before.

In reaction to my joke comment getting posted (because Willis' eyes wandered onto it), the commenter I previously mentioned (after Willis' tirade of profanity), submitted (to the blog of Willis) the following (which was published).

Rational Nation USA: Now Will, we've discussed this before. It does no good to allow Mr. Canardo Sanders to drag you down to his level. Simply accept him for what he is, make your point respectfully, and then ignore him. He is demonstrably and certifiably off his rocker. (9/29/2013 AT 6:33pm).

And on my blog (in response to me commenting on this incident) he submitted this...

Rational Nation USA: Keep quacking Mr. Sanders, keep quacking. (9/29/2013 AT 9:38pm).

I did not know what he meant by "quacking", so I said "quacking in the context above means? I'm going to guess telling the truth". In response to my guess as to what he meant by quacking, the following remark was forthcoming...

Rational Nation USA: No Canardo, more like in telling lies. But really Canardo, who gives a f**k? (10/06/2013 AT 11:16pm).

Note that "Canardo" is a liar (as decoded here). He was saying I lied about something. What, exactly, I am not sure. Did I lie about my comment being a joke? Did I lie about Willis losing his temper and launching into a heavy-on-the-profanity response? Who knows? The individual in question never explained what I was quacking/lying about. Only that I was quacking.

If the quacking was in regard to Willis losing his temper, perhaps now there is some agreement in regards to that?

The following comment from this same person (approximately 21 months later) on this blog in response to a post in which I asked why Willis called out Randal Paul for his "temper" in regards to the "dust up" between Randal and Chris Christie during the Fox Nooz Repub "debate".

Rational Nation USA: It is curious that my once friend Will jumped on Paul for temper, It is quite possible that Will himself has a temper when questioned. (8/11/2015 AT 7:58pm).

Huh. Remember that I said (21 months ago) that "this Will Hart fella certainly has a temper". At the time Mr. Nation said (about me) "He is demonstrably and certifiably off his rocker"... on Willis' blog. On my blog he accused me of "quacking".

Now he makes the same observation himself (re Willis' temper). Does this mean that Mr. Nation is "quacking"? I do not know, as I was never sure what I was quacking about. It does seem, however, that my comments about Willis' temper are now being met with some agreement. Perhaps I was not so "off my rocker" after all?

OST #65

An Attempt by Willis Hart to Flatter Me Into Leaving His Blog?

Willis Hart wants me to leave his blog and never return. Or, at least not submit any further comments. The last attempt to get me to depart was a comment (actually multiple comments) from him claiming that he no longer is reading anything I submit. Not even "accidentally", as he is using a "cutout" to cover his computer screen. A piece of paper that covers up the comments while leaving visible the commenter's Blogger ID.

This allows him to delete my words without ever seeing them. But, unfortunately for Willis that tactic did not work, in that I still read his blog and submit comments.

Now another tactic?

Willis Hart: "Euripides on Dealing With Idiots"... "It is not wise to speak wisdom to the foolish". (6/26/2014 AT 9:35pm).

Looks to me to be another post attempting to get me to leave. This tactic has Willis admitting he's a fool who I should stop trying to speak wisdom to him. Humm... No, I'm not going to allow flattery to cause me to do as Willis wishes either.

Besides, it's too ambiguous. If Willis wants to flatter me into leaving by admitting he's the fool - he needs to refer to both of us specifically in his post. The way he's written his post it's open to interpretation.

And I'm sure that, even though I know he's referring to my comments as "wisdom" and himself as a fool, others might interpret this post as him calling ME foolish, and him banning me because he's the wise one. I know, that doesn't make a lot of sense given how incredibly foolish the Hartster's posts can be... but the last one is just the kind of interpretation his regular readers would surely come up with.

So, sorry Willis. Even though *I* know what you're trying to say, you'll have to do better for me to even consider being flattered into departing your echo chamber.

OST #20

On Being So Afraid of Uncomfortable Facts That You Use A Cutout to Cover Portions of Your Computer Monitor

The blog of Willis Hart is open to the public (not a private blog). That being the case, I read and I comment, as people often do on blog postings that interest them. Now, it is true that Mr. Hart banned me from his blog for some exceedingly stupid reason (quite some time ago... on 8/30/2012).

However, seeing as the reasoning behind the banishment was idiotic, I decided to ignore it and continue reading and commenting. He no longer publishes any comments I submit, but I do not let that deter me.

Now, get this... it seems that my comments on the Hartster's blog have made him so uncomfortable - in that I frequently disagree with what he's written and say so - that the poor guy has had to resort to extremely drastic measures to avoid the cognitive dissonance my refuting of his beliefs must have been causing.

Drastic measures as described by Mr. Hart in the following post...

Willis Hart: "Note to wd"... I have developed a system in which I no longer have to even accidentally see what you write - not a single word. I am using a 4.5 x 5.5 cutout which enables me to cover the comments section but which also allows me to see the author of the words, and when I see your name I promptly delete what I can properly assume to be more of your virulent idiocy. (6/1/2014 AT 8:27am).

"Virulent idiocy" is obviously what he calls truths that contradict the misinformation he'd rather believe. I don't know about you, but I think "virulent idiocy" is a good descriptor for actions - and commentaries describing actions - such as creating a fricking cutout to cover up your screen so you don't have to read facts you don't like.

Are actions like those described by Willis pathetic or what? BTW, if you're thinking that my continuing to comment on Mr. Hart's blog when he does not want me to constitutes "harassment", I disagree.

That I'm "harassing" him is an allegation Mr. Hart has actually made against me, BTW...

"This is Your Last Warning, wd"... I've asked you on more than several occasions to cease and desist with the comments and yet you continue to spam me with your partisan and knee-jerk idiocy. If I have to tell you again, I will file a complaint with the server on grounds of harassment. (9/15/2013 AT 3:43pm).

At first I thought he was joking. Or, rather I took it as an unintentional joke, given the fact that I have never "harassed" Willis Hart. Like I said, his blog is public and available to read by anyone. And I have NEVER targeted Willis "with behavior that is meant to alarm, annoy, torment or terrorize" him, which is what "harassment" actually is (according to FindLaw.com).

So, the "harassment" charge is simply ridiculous, which is why I ignored his "warning" and continued submitting comments. Fact is, the warning convinced me that I should not give up. Nobody likes being insulted, and I absolutely refuse to go away and allow these people to continue to talk about me behind my back.

Not that I'm mad or upset as one of the commenters speculated I might be...

Dennis Marks: I hear the sound of something like a very angry version of Yosemite Sam, stamping and swearing, from inside a hermetically sealed jar in a bunker 30 miles below the surface. (6/1/2014 AT 12:21pm).

Nope, I'm not doing any of that. The comments of these bloggers actually make me laugh. I wouldn't bother if I wasn't having fun with them. Yeah, I'll probably give up commenting on Mr. Hart's blog eventually, but not quite yet. I think I'm going to give it a while longer and see what happens.

4/9/2016 Update: Me commenting on the WTNPH blog ended on 3/8/2016 after Willis restricted commenting to "team members".

OST #15

Formerly The Will Hart Contra O'Reilly Response Page

Welcome to my new blog. The Will Hart Contra O'Reilly Response Page is a page attached to my blog (Sleeping with The Devil) that I set up to respond to posts and comments on the blog Contra O'Reilly, a blog I was banned from awhile back.

Given the fact that I still wish to respond to the nonsense of the blog proprietor, I originally set up a page on my blog where I could do just that. Now, on the advice of the blogger rAtional nAtion, I've decided a PAGE simply isn't enough. Hence this brand new blog.

All posts on this blog will be in response to, as previously noted, posts and comments on the Contra O'Reilly blog. The posts will be what my response would be if my commenting were still allowed on that blog. The Will Hart Contra O'Reilly Response Page should now be considered closed.

 OST #1