Pure Idiocy #2

The Libertarian idiot Willis Hart on the debunked fake news story PizzaGate. Again.

Willis Hart: On the Scurrilous Accusation that I Get All of My News from Fake News Sites (You Know, as Opposed to Legitimate Sources Such as Rachel MadDUH, the Young Jerks, the Clinton News Network, the New York Crimes, the War Street Journal, the Washington Compost Heap, the Weekly Substandard, Snopes, Dan I'd Rather Not, Spittin' Chris Matthews, PolitiCON, etc.) I get my information from a wide variety of sources, NONE OF WHICH I TAKE AT FACE VALUE (as opposed to these leftist degenerate fools who hang on every word that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow say as if it was gospel). So, with this Pizzagate story, for example, yes, I did watch some of the Youtbe videos on it but I also went directly to Wikileaks and examined the emails for myself and, guess what, folks. It appears that these Podesta brothers (along with a small cadre of other perverts) ARE communicating in some sort of pedophilia code. and not only is the mainstream media not covering these cretins, they're giving them cover!! So, ya' still bent out of shape over this fake news, leftists? P.S. And, no, I never said a single time that Mrs. Clinton herself was involved in this. That was a bald-faced lie and the person who said it is a dirty, slimy, low-down slice of shit. Excuse my French. (12/18/2016 AT 5:08pm).

WHO said Willis gets all his news from fake news sites? WHO said it, you idiot?! As usual, zero details. He just goes off on a litany of news sources he doesn't like (via childish name calling). I guess he couldn't come up with a insult-name for Snopes.

Snopes might be on his list because I included a Snopes link in one of my comments in a response to Willis talking about fake news. He said fake news is a "nonsensical talking point". And I said, if that is the case, he must believe that the Pope endorsed Trump.

Then I wrote that Willis "believes fake news stories that have HRC at the heart of a child sex ring". Which is what the conspiracy theory says (Comet Ping Pong Pizzeria Home to Child Abuse Ring Led by Hillary Clinton).

Although during this exchange (which took place on WYD) I never said he gets all his news from fake news sites. I never said that, so if he's talking about me, he's lying. Also, I assumed that, since Willis buys the PizzaGate bullshit, he buys all of it. My mistake. He said he does not believe HRC is involved, and I ACCEPTED his response. What I wrote was "So you don't believe every aspect of it. OK".

So how does that make me a liar? I didn't lie. I assumed he believed the conspiracy theory in it's entirety. He said he did not and I said "OK". That isn't LYING, you moron! Or should I say "that isn't lying, you dirty, slimy, low-down slice of shit" (WTF is a "slice of shit"?).

BTW, the Podesta brothers are NOT communicating in some sort of pedophilia code. They're talking about cheese and pizza, idiot. Also, the MSM is NOT "giving cover" to pedophiles. According to NBC's Tom Costello "we've talked to the DC police. We've talked to the FBI. They have absolutely no reason to believe that any of this is true". (I have no link for this quote, as I copied it down when I heard it on Chris Matthew's show on 12/5/2016).

It must be because they're Democrats. Republicans they arrest. Eventually. I refer to Dennis Hastert, who Willis, in one of his comments calls a "convicted pedophile". Which he isn't. He should be, but the statute of limitations ran out.

I mention this up because the evil blog troll Luke Spencer, when I pointed out that Willis had his facts wrong, replied "no surprise, Dervish and RN support Dennis H. That's exposing their true character".

A lie. Pointing out that Willis has his facts wrong (as he often does) isn't "support". Hastert SHOULD be a convicted pedophile. But he wasn't convicted of child molestation. He plead guilty to "structuring". So he is convicted. And he is a pedophile. But he wasn't convicted for pedophilia (which WTNPH's comment inferred).

Anyway, while I corrected the a-hole Luke, my comment doesn't seem to be showing up. I left another one and the first one reappeared. Now, I just checked and it's gone again (I commented twice after Luke's lie but right now I see neither). Commenting seems to be buggy on WYD (with MANY of my comments vanishing).

OST #189

Pure Idiocy #1

The Libertarian idiot Willis Hart authors another post having to do (tangentially) with PizzaGate.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that if Pervert Podesta Was Really and Truly Concerned About Hacking, He Probably Should Have Come Up with a Better Password than, Say, p@ssw0rd - https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/22335... Too much to ask? (12/19/2016 AT 5:04pm).

Is it just me, or is Willis getting dumber by the day?

Below is the email he is referring to.

It appears to me that eryn.sepp@gmail.com is telling jpodesta that the CAP monkeyed with his computer (it's "good to go") and gave him a TEMPORARY password ("p@ssw0rd"). Which is COMMON. After you sign in the first time you change it. The system MAKES you change it.

Also note yet another reference to the debunked fake news story PizzaGate (referring to John Podesta as a "pervert").

So dumb.

On the other hand, it seems that John Podesta did fall for a phishing email and that's how the hackers got in. An email purporting to be from Google said his account had been compromised and that he should change his password (The phishing email that hacked the account of John Podesta).

Looks like there was a link in the email, and he clicked and "changed" his password through Google (i.e. gave his password to the hackers when he clicked on a link to a fake Google site). Which is pretty dumb (whoever did it. The article notes that someone might have done it for Podesta).

Although, according to the article "Charles Delevan at the HFA help desk wrote to Podesta's chief of staff, Sara Latham [and said] this is a legitimate email... John needs to change his password immediately".

OK, but navigate to Google yourself to change your password. Don't click a link in the email! Pretty basic stuff, IMO. I have received such phishing emails myself and I've never fallen for them.

"All of these hacks were executed using these shortened URLs... created with a Bitly account linked to a domain under the control of Fancy Bear" (Fancy Bear being the name of a Russian hacking group)... the article reveals.

Here I was thinking they used sophisticated methods beyond my understanding, but it was the age old reliance on the stupidity of the end user.

But the DNC was never hacked according to Willis. He thinks the info was downloaded onto a thumb drive by Seth Rich, the DNC staffer that HRC had murdered (presumably).

Apparently the Hartster is BIG into conspiracy theories these days. He talks about brain disease a LOT. Might that be the explanation?

Update 1/9/2016: Charles Delavan, the individual who wrote to John Podesta that the phishing email was "legitimate" says he intended to type "illegitimate". It was a typo. (see below).

OST #188

Who's Forcing Willis Hart To Listen To The Music Of Kanye West?

According to a 9/13/2016 commentary someone is forcing the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart to listen to music he doesn't like.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Both of These Performers Are Considered Musical Geniuses but as Anybody with Even a Scintilla of Gray-Matter Can Tell You, Only One of Them Is and it Isn't the Pecker-Head on the [Right]. And what a sad trajectory it's been, hey, folks (the fact that black music has gone from Miles Davis and Thelonious Monk to the cavalcade of miscreant hip-hop stars that we're presently forced to listen to)? (9/13/2016 AT 11:08pm).

Miles Davis (1926–1991) and Kanye West (dob 1977).

I don't listen to the music of either of these individuals. Nobody has ever attempted to force me to listen to either Miles Davis or Kanye West. For the record, I used to like Kanye West - due to his truth-telling concerning former preznit bush re Katrina.

...the rapper's first large-scale controversy came just days following Late Registration's release, during a benefit concert for Hurricane Katrina victims. In September 2005, NBC broadcast A Concert for Hurricane Relief, and West was a featured speaker. When West was presenting alongside actor Mike Myers, he deviated from the prepared script. Myers spoke next and continued to read the script. Once it was West's turn to speak again, he said, "George Bush doesn't care about black people". West's comment reached much of the United States, leading to mixed reactions; President Bush would later call it one of the most "disgusting moments" of his presidency.

Since then, however, he's done/said things that have changed my opinion of him. I believe I've heard some of his music - by way of him performing on Saturday Night Live. Although (as with almost every musical act that performs on SNL) I press the fast forward button on my DVR.

But Willis Hart not liking the music of Kanye West is (IMO) a typical case of someone who isn't young generally not liking newer music. But instead of admitting such is the case, the 60 year-old Hartster makes his dislike of Kanye's music a Black thing. Because he's a pecker-headed racist.

BTW, while I'm not familiar with Miles Davis, I suspect I'd prefer his music to that of Kanye West. But I wouldn't attribute this to Black music going from being good to a "cavalcade of miscreant hip-hop stars". First of all, there are White hip hop stars (something WTNPH is apparently unaware of), and secondly (and as I areadly pointed out), older generations generally don't like the music of younger generations.

Anyway, who is "forcing" him to listen to it? Black Lives Matter? Black coworkers or neighbors that Willis curses under his breath (possibly using the N-word)?

Video1: Terence Blanchard's "Levees". A cut from the 2008 album A Tale of God's Will (A Requiem for Katrina). A work by Blanchard (a BLACK artist) that came about when film director Spike Lee commissioned New Orleans native Blanchard to compose the score for his 2006 four-hour award-winning HBO documentary When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts (8:09).

Video2: A track from my favorite Terence Blanchard film score, 2001's The Caveman's Valentine (3:32).

OST #179

Willis Hart Animal Farm George Orwell Stupidity

This post concerns a question from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in the context of a discussion on Socialism (in which I stressed that I consider myself to be a democratic socialist and believe in a mixed economy). (This is a question he posed back when I wasn't banned from his blog).

Willis Hart: Pure socialism ALWAYS leads to a concentration of power in the state. Yeah, there might be an election here and there but the ruling elites always end up in power. Never read Animal Farm, huh? (1/2/2012 AT 7:28pm)

So, Animal Farm - the allegory by George Orwell (pen name of Eric Arthur Blair) - is a warning against the adoption of socialism, as it always leads to a concentration of power in the State? Apparently Willis believes so.

Given this "truth", George Orwell must have been a strong believer in capitalism, right?

Animal Farm is an allegorical and dystopian novella by George Orwell, first published in England on 17 August 1945. According to Orwell, the book reflects events leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1917 and then on into the Stalin era in the Soviet Union. Orwell, a democratic socialist, was a critic of Joseph Stalin and hostile to Moscow-directed Stalinism... (Wikipedia/Animal Farm).

So, Orwell was actually writing from the viewpoint of a democratic socialist and criticizing the totalitarianism of Stalinism. Yet Willis thinks Animal Farm is a warning that socialism will inevitably to totalitarianism? No. He says it's "pure" socialism (under which the State owns the means of production) that "always leads to a concentration of power in the state".

Odd then that he'd quote Orwell, who actually did argue in favor of this flavor of socialism (the "pure" kind).

Socialism is usually defined as "common ownership of the means of production". Crudely: the State, representing the whole nation, owns everything, and everyone is a State employee. This does not mean that people are stripped of private possessions such as clothes and furniture, but it does mean that all productive goods, such as land, mines, ships and machinery, are the property of the State. The State is the sole large-scale producer. It is not certain that Socialism is in all ways superior to capitalism, but it is certain that, unlike capitalism, it can solve the problems of production and consumption. At normal times a capitalist economy can never consume all that it produces, so that there is always a wasted surplus (wheat burned in furnaces, herrings dumped back into the sea etc. etc.) and always unemployment. ... In a Socialist economy these problems do not exist. The State simply calculates what goods will be needed and does its best to produce them. (Shopkeepers At War 2/19/1941).

My argument in this discussion was the the Soviet Union failed because it combined socialism and totalitarianism (the same as Orwell's)... and in response Willis asks if I've ever read Animal Farm?!

Eric Arthur Blair (6/25/1903 to 1/21/1950), who used the pen name George Orwell, was an English novelist, essayist, journalist and critic. His work is marked by lucid prose, awareness of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism, and outspoken support of democratic socialism. [According to Orwell] "a real Socialist is one who wishes – not merely conceives it as desirable, but actively wishes – to see tyranny overthrown". (Wikipedia/George Orwell).

So, when I said that I thought that totalitarianism is the reason the Soviet Union failed, more so than socialism, Willis said "the fact that you would even try and cushion it's [socialism's] culpability is disgusting".

If me defending democratic socialism is "disgusting", why would Willis cite a book written by a democratic socialist to make his point? The funny thing about this is, that if Orwell was still living, crossed paths with Willis Hart and began discussing Russia under Stalin... Willis might ask Orwell if he had ever read Animal Farm (provided Orwell didn't identify himself to Willis using his pen name). And then tell Orwell that he found his (Orwell's) defense of socialism to be disgusting.

BTW, although I consider myself a democratic socialist, I do NOT believe the State should own the means of production (as Orwell did). My opinion is that more of the means of production should be owned by the workers (employee owned co-operatives). An opinion regarding democratic socialism that is in agreement with Bernie Sanders' view.

"I don't believe government should own the means of production" Senator Sanders said at Georgetown University on 11/17/2015, "in attempt to widen the appeal of his brand of democratic socialism". In this speech Senator Sanders "tied himself to the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt and called for far-reaching social programs to reduce income inequality" (articulated by FDR with his 2nd bill of rights).

OST #145

Willis Hart To Win Nobel Peace Prize?

Is the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart a potential future Nobel Peace prize winner? He just might be, if the organization he writes one of his "notes" to takes his advice.

Willis Hart: Note to ISIS... Hey guys, I have a suggestion. Instead of engaging in mass-executions and suicide attacks, you try a little something different. Like, I don't know, maybe construct a functional sewage system, hire a few traffic cops, build and maintain a half-way reliable electrical grid - you know, basic civilization stuff. No, it isn't as exciting as playing soldier or as psychologically comforting as thinking that there's a actually a god who rewards murder and mayhem with an afterlife of unlimited jail-bait but you gotta grow up sometime, fellas'. (4/11/2016 AT 4:22pm).

OK, so now that Willis has pointed out the flaw in the logic of ISIS, I'm sure they're going to change their ways and follow Mr. Hart's advice ASAP. Because you know someone high up in the ISIS ranks reads Contra O'Reilly.

Anyway, now that Willis has solved the ISIS/terrorism problem, I'm positive that, in appreciation, the citizens of the world will demand that he be awarded a Nobel Peace prize. You know, because, unlike Obama, he actually brought about peace.

Or, he is about to. Now that ISIS is aware of what they're doing wrong (thanks to Hart's note), it's only a matter of time before they start behaving themselves and doing exactly what Willis has prescribed. Because they will recognize the wisdom behind his words. Also because (upon realizing that they've been wrong all along) will be greatly ashamed. And realize they DO need to grow up and stop fantasizing about martyring themselves in the name of Allah (by blowing themselves up/murdering others) and receiving their "jailbait" reward in the afterlife.

Although the Koran states that believers receive "companions of equal age [who are] well-matched... pure beings" known as Houri. However, "some scholars argue that the promise of 72 virgins is a mistranslation". Also (however), according to Ibn Warraq (referring to The Syro-Aramaic reading of the Koran) "the context makes it clear that it is food and drink that is being offered, and not unsullied maidens or houris".

But Al-Tirmidhi (824–892) did write that an "houri is a girl of tender age". So, jailbait? This might very well be what ISIS suicide bombers believe they're going to be rewarded with in the afterlife. Anyway, given that they're fanatics, they'd probably want to chop off Willis' head... as opposed to reading and following the advice he gives in his "note".

I suppose I could be wrong, however, and that when Gary Johnson is elected president, he will appoint the Nobel-Peace-prize-winning Willis Hart to a prominent cabinet position (or Gary might even select him as his VP). In order to take advantage of his extraordinary wisdom.

By the way, there is also the fact that all the territory occupied by ISIS is actually parts of other countries, ruled by other people. If ISIS fighters put down their weapons and started constructing functional sewage systems, hiring traffic cops, and building and maintaining reliable electrical grids... they'd be shot and killed. Or arrested, tried and executed. You can't start acting like a government when you're not one. Because the actual government views your militia as belligerents.

I mean, when/if they win the war, then they likely would do these things (as their goal is to set up a strict Islamic state/Caliphate). They have to win the war FIRST, however. Are they "playing soldier", as the dense Hartster puts it, or are they freedom fighters? Yeah, I think that (at least in their view), they're the later. And freedom fighters have to win first BEFORE doing things governments do.

In other words... Willis again shows how much of a total moron he is. Oh, and "murder and mayhem"? They view us (the United States, Europe & allies) as the ones engaging in this, and they're only retaliating.

OST #137

On The Fact That Willis Hart Apparently Does Not Give A Shit What The Truth Is Anymore (Re Him Falsely Asserting That It's A "Fact" That Bernie Sanders Has Never Had A Private Sector Job)

I'm not saying that the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart has EVER cared that much what the truth is, given the fact that he frequently sticks with information gleened from Conservative or Libertarian souces (information that is frequently wrong). That doesn't stop him from writing commentaries where he refers to "facts" (in the titles) that are often not facts.

But I found the following WTNPH post to be especially egregious. I mean, info concerning Bernie's employment could have been easily found. Willis- didn't have to guess. Or, I'm guessing he guessed. Because he's wrong - and the facts that prove this could have been easily located. So... he didn't look? (Or maybe he's lying).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Bernie Sanders Has Apparently Never Had a Private Sector Job... Well that explains a lot (his lack of respect private property, free markets, entrepreneurs, etc.), hey, folks? (2/7/2016 AT 8:28pm).

False. Bernie Sanders has held private sector jobs.

[After] Sanders [graduated from] the University of Chicago [he was married and purchased some property with] some inheritance money from his father, who had died in 1963. [Following his divorce in] 1966... He bounced around for a few years, working stints in New York as an aide at a psychiatric hospital and teaching preschoolers for Head Start, and in Vermont researching property taxation for the Vermont Department of Taxes and registering people for food stamps for a nonprofit called the Bread and Law Task Force. [After moving to Burlington Vermont] He worked some as a carpenter, although [a friend said] His carpentry... was not going to support him [because it was not good]. He worked as a freelance writer, putting intermittent pieces in the low-budget Vermont Freeman, a Burlington alternative weekly called the Vanguard Press and a glossy, state-supported magazine called Vermont Life. "He was always poor", [said] another old friend... Sanders... was on unemployment for a few months in 1971. In 1977... he started a business... making low-budget films about people, places and events in Vermont and New England history that he felt were getting short shrift in the region's schools... His biggest project was "a 30-minute color documentary videotape"... about Eugene Debs... He priced it at $200 or offered it for rent for $35. It was March of 1981 [that he became an] elected official, now making $33,800 a year [as mayor of Burlington], more than he ever had... (Bernie Sanders Has A Secret by Michael Kruse. Politico 7/9/2015).

What's the "secret"? According to a friend interviewed for the article I quote above, it's his person life. One source said "It's none of your f—-ing business" when asked a question about Sanders' personal life. Although, if he is the nominee, you can be assured that the Republicans will be all over this. Apparently Sanders did not do well in the public sector.

However, as the article notes, he DID have numerous jobs where his salary wasn't paid for with tax dollars. Sanders worked in the private sector until he was elected mayor of Burlington at the age of 39. Although he never did manage a Walmart, which Willis apparently believes is something the voters should require of a candidate before electing them president. Management in the private sector being a necessary qualification in the eyes of Conservatives.

But Bernie Sanders isn't running for president of the public sector, he's running for president of government. And Sanders ABSOLUTELY has proven to be successful in politics and doing the job he was elected to do. Whether it be mayor, member of the House of Representatives, or Senator. Which, not being a Conservative, makes him HIGHLY qualified in my opinion.

Anyway, my point is that Willis apparently simply does not give a shit anymore what the truth is. He just makes it up, apparently. Or gets it secondhand from some Libertarian or Conservative source (that's lying). Or maybe he heard it from Anthony Crispino.

Also, what's up with Willis' non sequitur (of him falsely believing Bernie Sanders never held a private sector job) meaning he has a "lack of respect [for] private property, free markets, [and] entrepreneurs"? Progressives respect these things very much. Although (as a Progressive myself), I'd say the "free market" Willis refers to doesn't exist. Markets are the creation of government (which sets and enforces the rules). Progressives believe in regulated markets.

Other than that caveat, I agree with the things WTNPH lists. Willis lies with his constant bashing of Progressives (Bernie Sanders, while he describes himself as a Democratic Socialist, is one of the founders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus). Progressives (and Bernie Sanders) believe in private property, REGULATED markets and entrepreneurs. However, as Willis revealed earlier this month, he thinks the ENTIRE Left is Communist. So that might (partially) explain this idiocy (the WTNPH post referenced above).

Seriously, I REALLY think the Hartster might be suffering from some kind of brain disease. Given his recent reliance on Black & White generalizations (a la 1970s wrestling analogies) that have him characterizing the (wholly Communist) Left as purely venal and Libertarians as purely virtuous... I wouldn't rule it out.

OST #106

On Willis Hart Getting All Exercised Over The Existence Of Mt. Rushmore

Pure stupidity from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart regarding the erection of monuments in honor of dead leaders.

Willis Hart: On Mount Rushmore... Not only is this a dumb idea (glorifying politicians), it's a dangerous one (the fact that history is replete with charismatic leaders who the people have succumbed to and ended up six feet under or wishing that they were). And look at the four dudes who we've chosen to put up there; two slaveholders and two war-mongering crazies (though, yes, Washington and Jefferson are preferable overall to Roosevelt and Lincoln)! I'm telling ya', if it was up to me, I'd have sandblasted that sucker (Mount Flushmore is what I call it) decades ago. (1/21/2016 AT 5:02pm).

For the most part it seems as though Willis is opposed to the existence of this monument (Willis: "I don't think that there should be a Rushmore, period"), although there is one post where he says that his Mount Rushmore would consist of the faces of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Cleveland.

Obviously it depends on WHICH politicians we're talking about. Clearly that one post proves that Willis is OK with "glorifying politicians"... it all depends on whether or not he personally agrees with the politics of the politician in question.

On the other hand, WTNPH has authored many more in which he says it should not exist or be destroyed. WHY so many commentaries in regards to this specific monument and none of our many other monuments honoring politicians? Washington DC has a lot of them, yet not one commentary where he says the Lincoln Memorial should be dismantled (which one might expect, given how much Willis hates Lincoln). Also no commentaries where he expresses an opinion in the affirmative re dynamiting the Washington Monument either (and so on).

Anyway, in regards to Willis' statement, "look at the four dudes who we've chosen to put up there"... FALSE. "We" did not choose. According to Wikipedia it was Gutzon Borglum, the sculptor, who "decided [Mount Rushmore] should have a more national focus and [he] chose the four presidents whose likenesses would be carved into the mountain".

I don't know why Willis would say "we" chose. Does he think there was a vote by all US citizens and we democratically selected George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln? It is true that "South Dakota historian Doane Robinson is credited with conceiving the idea of carving the likenesses of famous people into the Black Hills region of South Dakota in order to promote tourism in the region [and] Robinson wanted it to feature western heroes like Lewis and Clark, Red Cloud, and Buffalo Bill Cody"... but the sculptor decided on the presidents (although "President Coolidge insisted that, along with Washington, two Republicans and one Democrat be portrayed"). "We" had nothing to do with it (as per Wikipedia).

As for Willis' desire to "sandblast" Rushmore, this reminds me of the sentiments of another group.

Tracking a trail of historical obliteration: ISIS trumpets destruction of Nimrud [article excerpt] ISIS continues to bulldoze its way through the cultural heritage of Iraq and Syria, releasing a new propaganda video showing its fighters destroying Iraq's ancient Assyrian city of Nimrud in March. Nimrud lies close to ISIS' main stronghold in Iraq, the northern city of Mosul. The video... shows militants attacking the more than 3,000-year-old archaeological site with sledgehammers and power tools before finally using explosives to blow it up. The United Nations has previously described such deliberate cultural destruction as a "war crime"... (CNN article by Susannah Cullinane, Hamdi Alkhshali and Mohammed Tawfeeq. 4/13/2015).

So, as per this article (and given the fact that Rushmore is "listed on the National Register of Historic Places"), would the Hartster's desire to sandblast it be a WAR CRIME (if he acted on it)? He does say that "if it were up to him". Luckily it isn't up to him, as if it were destroyed it would surely cost South Dakota a lot in lost tourism dollars. One has to wonder why Willis hates the people of South Dakota so much. At least those citizens whose incomes are linked to tourism.

There is one valid criticism to be made here however, which is related to the fact that "the United States seized the area from the Lakota tribe after the Great Sioux War of 1876 [even though] the Treaty of Fort Laramie from 1868 had previously granted the Black Hills to the Lakota in perpetuity"... but none of Willis' idiotic diatribes have anything to do with the Lakota's valid gripes.

OST #104

Willis Hart Moronic Whine Re "Secret" Comments Submitted To His Blog

Idiocy from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in which he whines about his public receiving comments! How dare anyone attempt to disrupt his echo chamber!

Willis Hart: On the Engaging in Behavior (Unsolicited and Unwanted Blog "Commentary") that if it Were Any Other Sphere of Life (Phone Calls, Letters, Showing Up at a Person's House, etc.) Would Probably Get You Arrested, Convicted, and Put in Jail but Because this Shit Can Be Done in Secret it Shamelessly and Moronically Continues Unabated... What's that they say, that you can only judge a person's morals by how they behave when no one is watching? Hey fellas, NO ONE IS WATCHING. (1/14/2016 AT 4:25pm).

WTNPH has referenced other comments that went unpublished in the past.

For example...

Willis Hart: I was obliquely accused by some pompous and marginally literate boob (with multiple handles, no less) of "coming out early tonight." It was an almost passive aggressive comment and, while it clearly wasn't as nasty as some of the other bullshit that's flied of late, I just don't tolerate it anymore and so I've banned his sorry ass. Arrivederci schmuck. (9/26/2015 AT 8:20pm).

Not sure who it might have been that submitted that comment (if anyone. Maybe Willis made it up or imagined it). It was not me, however. Although I have submitted a number of comments to Willis' blog that he decided not to publish. So he might be talking about me. Actually, I think it's quite likely he's talking about me, as I frequently stop by his blog to read and leave a brief comment or two.

I'd like to point out, however, that Willis Hart's blog is open to the public and by designating his blog as PUBLIC he is soliciting comments. Secondly, the ONLY reason these comments are "secret" is because Willis does not publish them! (Obviously if he published them they wouldn't be secret).

If he only wants agreeable comments he could change his blog settings so that only approved people could comment. Or he could make it so that only approved people could even SEE his blog. He is choosing to not adjust these settings and thus leaving his blog open for PUBLIC view and PUBLIC comment (and soliciting comments with these settings that he selected!).

In regards to his assertion of phoning, sending letters to and showing up at the home of someone being analogous to submitting comments to a PUBLIC blog - I say bullshit. His home is private, his blog is not (by HIS CHOICE!).

IMO him selecting these settings (making his blog PUBLIC) is analogous to him placing a sign outside his home inviting people in to look around. And, if he did that (invite anyone in with a sign), the police would tell him to take a hike if he attempted to have people who took him up on his offer arrested. The cops would tell him to take down the sign and lock his door.

BTW, I hereby declare to the world that I submit comments to Willis Hart's blog... thereby making me commenting on his blog not a "secret". And, while nobody may be watching this blog (OST), it too is open to the PUBLIC - so that invalidates his judging of morals by how someone behaves when no one is watching (since anyone can view this admission, thereby making it a public admission).

OST #94

On The Fact That Willis Hart Considers Something A "Fact" If: A) He Reads It On A Conservative Website & B) It Confirms His Biases

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart's supposed facts (in this case) leading to a conclusion that supports his bias against "Black activists".

Willis Hart: On the Fact that a Shitload of Black Activists Are Presently Burning Up Twitter with Beefs Pertaining to the Level of Press Coverage that the Paris Terror Attacks Have Been Receiving and Are Alleging this Attention Is Somehow Taking Away Coverage from Their Grievances at the University of Missouri... So, a poop Swastika (that not one person thought to take a picture of) and some yahoo who may or may not have been affiliated with the University shouting out the n-word from a moving vehicle deserves the same level of coverage as 129 people being slaughtered (with hundreds more wounded)? Damn, huh? P.S. Whatever else that these spoiled brats (probably a lot of the same morons who booed Bernie Sanders) have learned at the "academy", perspective surely isn't one of them. (11/18/2015 AT 4:04pm).

My reaction to reading this is that YES, it does sound rather ridiculous if true. So I did a Google search and, as it turns out, a "shitload" of Conservative websites are reporting on this "story". Fox Nooz, The Daily Mail, The Washington Times, Breitbart and The Daily Caller (the first 5 results, all of which link to Conservervative sites) all claim that upset Mizzou protestors have tweeted about the attacks in Paris taking the focus away from their issue.

Mizzou, however, disputes that these tweets came from anyone associated with the University. (This story was the 6th result displayed when I did my Google search).

False Social Media Posts Regarding Attacks in Paris (11/14/2015) Social media posts expressing dismay that the tragedy in Paris is diverting media attention from events at the University of Missouri are being made by individuals from outside the Mizzou community in an attempt to create conflict. Our hearts go out to the citizens of Paris and all those affected by the tragic events of last night. While our community has faced difficulties over the past week, we express our sincere sympathy to those who have been affected by the events in Paris and remain committed to making Mizzou stronger and more inclusive.

Also, the Columbia Missourian, "a daily morning newspaper published in Columbia MO" that looked at the accounts behind these tweets and tried to find out who these people are, found that NONE of the tweeters could be linked to Mizzou.

Fact Check: No proof tweets about Paris attacks came from MU protesters (excerpt from a 11/19/2015 article by Katherine Knott) Our finding [is that] It's true that some people did tweet their dissatisfaction with the change in coverage. However, the tweets and commenters cited by the bloggers show no evidence of a connection to MU or the Concerned Student 1950 movement. Using the hashtag #Mizzou doesn't mean those people were camping on Carnahan Quadrangle or even present on campus. Meanwhile, leaders of the Concerned Student 1950 demonstrations and the Legion of Black Collegians have posted statements of sympathy and support for the victims of the Paris attacks, not statements of hate or anger. While it's impossible to prove beyond a doubt that those who complained about the redirected coverage have no connection to MU, we could find no evidence allowing us to independently verify that these individuals are, in fact, "Mizzou protesters".

There you have it. This makes much more sense than thinking any Mizzou protestor would tweet something in such incredibly bad taste... tweets that would absolutely guarantee their cause would get bad press. Which was obviously the goal of the fake tweeters.

Could it be that perspective, or "the faculty of seeing all the relevant data in a meaningful relationship", is something that Willis lacks? I say yes, given the relevant data, which is [1] tweets, and ONLY tweets, supposedly tweeted by Mizzou protestors which would obviously cause people to view them as HUGE a-holes, [2] statements of sympathy and support for the victims of the Paris attacks and not statements of hate or anger from confirmed Mizzou protestors and [3] the fact that only Conservative sources are reporting this.

Given these facts, perspective tells me that these tweets are probably not genuine and are from outsiders trying to create bad press for the Mizzou protesters. Find some of the actual protesters and get them on record saying that they're upset over the Paris attacks taking the focus off their cause and then I'll believe this story.

Unless that happens I'm not buying it. Unlike the Hartster, who clearly eagerly bought what he read from the Conservative websites that reported on these tweets... because it confirms his biases.

By the way, what's up with Willis' guess that the tweeters included "a lot of the same morons who booed Bernie Sanders" when he JUST referred to Senator Sanders (along with Senator Elizabeth Warren) as "two fucking imbeciles"? Why the hell would it offend him if anyone disrespected Sanders?

Image: This open space is located South of Jesse Hall. The Mel Carnahan Quadrangle was dedicated on 9/12/2003 to a former governor of Missouri and Honors his leadership in Public Service. The Carnahan Quad has emerged as the University's most significant new open space.

OST #82

On Not Knowing The Difference Between An Actor And The Character They're Playing

Apparently the blogger Willis Hart does not.

Willis Hart: On Eva Marie Saint's Seduction of Cary Grant in "North by Northwest"... Note to Eva (Eve in the film). He's gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that!!!! (7/8/2015 AT 8:35pm).

OK, so he does acknowledge that Eva Marie Saint had a different name in the film... because she was playing a character. But he seems to think that both Eva Marie Saint (the actress) and "Eve Kendall" (the character in the film) "seduced" Cary Grant.

And, btw, Cary Grant was also playing a character... so while Cary Grant MIGHT have been gay, "Roger Thornhill" was not.

In any case, I looked into it, and despite Willis being convinced that Cary Grant having been gay is a fact, I found information that suggests otherwise.

"My father liked being called gay", admits Cary Grant's daughter in new memoir... Cary Grant's daughter has penned a memoir about the famous actor, admitting he liked it when people called him gay. The British screen icon, who was married five times, was often dogged by rumors that he was bisexual. But his daughter Jennifer Grant... says the Hot Saturday star actually liked the mystique surrounding his sexuality because it "made women want to prove the assertion wrong". In the memoir, Good Stuff: A Reminiscence of My Father, Cary Grant, Jennifer writes: "(You) Can't blame men for wanting him, and wouldn't be surprised if Dad even mildly flirted back". (Excerpt from a 4/28/2011 Daily Mail Reporter article).

Obviously his daughter did not believe he was gay. (Cary Grant's only child Jennifer Grant was born in 1966. Jennifer's mother is Dyan Cannon, who Cary Grant married in 1965).

So, who am I going to believe, the Hollywood rumor mill (and Willis) or Cary Grant's daughter? Yeah, that's an easy one. Verdict: probably not gay. Or bisexual... which this article says the actual rumor was... so he WOULD have been open to a seduction by Eva Marie Saint, if she had actually tried to seduce him (as opposed to her character doing the "seducing").

Four strikes and Willis is out...

Strike 1 is not knowing Eva Marie Saint was acting and thinking she actually had romantic feelings for the lead she was playing opposite when, in reality, she was (and still is) married to Jeffrey Hayden (and Grant was married to Betsy Drake).

Cary Grant was also acting, and his character "Roger Tornhill" was a straight man who was open to being "seduced"... the two characters (Eve Kendall and Roger Thornhill) were married at the end of the film.

Strike 2 is thinking Cary Grant being gay is a confirmed fact instead of an unconfirmed rumor. A rumor that Grant addressed, saying that he had "nothing against gays, I'm just not one myself" [1]. And his own daughter disputes this as well. (Randolph Scott is the actor he was rumored to have had a gay affair with).

Strike 3 is him not knowing the actual rumor was that Cary Grant was bi-sexual, and therefore, if Eva had actually been seducing him (instead of acting) he may have been open to the seduction.

Strike 4 is thinking Eva Marie Saint - or anyone else he addresses with his "notes" - reads them. Or would care if they did. If Eva Marie Saint didn't know (or had heard the rumor) back in 1959... what is she (if she were to read Willis' "note") supposed to do with that information now?

Footnote
[1] Source: Wikipedia/Randolph Scott/Personal Life/Rumors about sexual orientation.

Image Description: Randolph Scott's adopted son, Christopher, challenged the rumors. Following Scott's death, Christopher wrote a book titled, Whatever Happened to Randolph Scott?, in which he rebuts rumors of his father's alleged homosexuality. The widely circulated photos of Grant and Scott were publicity stills. Both Scott and Grant were posed for the shots that were staged by an art director, to be used for an upcoming film, My Favorite Wife. The photos were stolen from the Scott family house during the last months of his father's life by a nurse who had been fired [1].

OST #57