On Willis Hart Being So Moronic That He Actually Believes Some of Donald Trump's Critics Think Trump's Sons Killed A Woolly Mammoth, A Saber Toothed Tiger And A Triceratops

The Trump-defending Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart LOVES to bash Liberals. And he LOVES it even more if he can bash Liberals for criticizing Donald Trump.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Some of Donald Trump's Critics Are so Moronic that They Actually Believe that the Dude's Sons Killed a Woolly Mammoth, a Saber Toothed Tiger, and a Triceratops [see video below]. Yes sir, that's a special kind of stupid. (3/26/2017 at 4:30pm).

The video in question, titled "Trump's Sons Kill a Triceratops on Hunting Safari - Liberals Believe, And They're Very Upset" (5:48).

I don't think that this is a case of people being stupid, it's a case of people not paying attention. Thinking of what they're going to say instead of listening. Or not expecting that the object of the interviewer is to make them look stupid. I mean, I've seen similar pranks on the Tonight Show. Word replacements that people, if they were paying attention, would catch.

My guess at to what is going on? Predictive perceptual signaling, which is a phenomenon in which the brain attempts to predict future perceptual input.

From the Science Brainwaves article "Hearing what you expect to hear"...

Most of us have had the experience of finding a glaring error in some written work that we had previously checked several times. For example when blogging I often find at least one simple error on a post once it has actually been published, despite proofreading it thoroughly before submission. In such circumstances it seems impossible that one can have overlooked such an obvious error. The reason that such mistakes get missed is that we tend to perceive what we expect to perceive. When proof reading something we ourselves have written we know what we were planning to write. We therefore tend to perceive the words we think we put on the page, rather than those that are actually there. (11/9/2014 article by Rob Hoskin PhD, the Neuroscience Department of Sheffield University).

The portion of the article I quoted has to do with seeing words what we expect to see, and not the words that are actually there. But the same applies to spoken words. Clearly the people being interviewed did not expect to hear the words "Woolly Mammoth", "Saber Toothed Tiger" or "Triceratops" because they are expecting "Lion", "Tiger" or "Elephant". And therefore they did not hear the names of extinct animals.

A more likely an explanation than people actually being so stupid as to they think the Trump sons killed extinct animals, no? And that, IMO, is ALL this video proves. That people hear what they expect to hear and not what is actually said. And that people aren't expecting that when an interviewer asks a question, the REAL intent is to prank them.

If the interviewer had said, "wait a minute, did you hear what I said - pay attention", I predict that zero of the people being interviewed would agree that the Trump sons could have killed a Woolly Mammoth, a Saber Toothed Tiger or a Triceratops.

BTW, the brain uses predictive perceptual signaling because "in the vast majority of cases expectation improves perception". According to the article "there is ample evidence from behavioural science that being able to predict the content of an upcoming stimulus improves our ability to successfully perceive it".

For more information read the article. Bottom line is, the human brain often deceives us. Also note that nobody in the video repeats what the interviewer said. Nobody says "yes, I agree that Eric and Donald Jr. killing that Woolly Mammoth was bad".

But the Hartster wants SO MUCH to believe that Liberals are this stupid. So he sees this prank and thinks, yeah, these people heard EXACTLY what the interviewer said and agreed that the Trump sons hunted and killed extinct animals. It is a "fact". Which points to Willis being the one that is "so moronic", IMO.

OST #203

WTNPH (A Trump Defender) Worries About The Orange One Being Removed From Office

The Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart, while not a Trump voter nor Trump supporter, none-the-less (and inexpliciplity) defends the Orange sexual-assaulter-in-chief. And worries that he may be removed from office for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that if the Political Establishment, Mainstream Media, and Intelligence Community Ultimately Succeed in Pushing Trump Out of Office Over What Has Thus Far Been Absolute Bullshit it Will Change the Fabric of the Country and In a Way that We May Not Appreciate... Yeah, I would say that we all need to stop and take a deep breath before we decide to cross that particular Rubicon. Don't you (the few sane people still around) agree? (3/7/2017 at 5:27pm).

First of all, I do NOT agree. Although I am certain that Willis would not categorize me as a sane person (while he absolutely would say he is). Also, I'd say that the fabric of our country already has been changed in a way many do not appreciate. Via the election of a man who was in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution as soon as he was sworn in. That would be the clause of the Consitution which "bans payments from foreign powers like the ones to Mr. Trump's companies".

Trump putting his sons in charge of running his companies is not a blind trust! As Forbes points out "transferring control of the assets solves one problem (management) but doesn't change the fact that Trump still knows what he owns. He knows how his actions, as President, can affect his business interests even if he's no longer in charge".

Then, there is the fact that Trump appointed his son-in-law Jared Kushner a "senior advisor", in violation of an anti-nepotism law that "states that a public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment a relative to an agency or office that is run by the official". (Jared Kushner cleared for Trump job, breaking with decades of legal advice).

The head of the Congressional watchdog organization, Public Citizen says (re the Trump administration) "we expect them to continue to overreach". I expect they will too, and that Trump could be removed from office for that reason. Or Trump could be removed under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, "which would allow the vice president and a majority of cabinet officers, or the vice president and a majority of such other body as Congress may by law provide, to declare the president unable to serve, making the vice president the acting president" (25th Amendment chatter: Dems, pundits mull ways to remove Trump).

The reasoning for invoking the 25th would be Trump's insanity. Many people believing that he is disconnected from reality. A lot of his (dis) information coming from far Right media. Breitbart, InfoWars and other outlets for far Right conspiracy theory baloney.

Although Willis refers (I believe) to the possibility of the Trump campaign colluding with Russia prior to his installation. To which I say, if it has "thus far been absolute bullshit", that doesn't mean the situation will remain the same. If Trump were to be removed due to collusion with Russia, there would have to be solid evidence.

Trump is NOT going to be removed from office if the conspiracy theory remains a theory. So WHY does Willis suspect that he might? Possibly because he is a total moron? Or possibly because he is down with the effort to discredit any actual evidence (should it come to light)?

Why won't Trump share his tax returns? Is it only because they show he is not as wealthy as he claims, or is it because they would prove he has financial ties to Russia?

But instead of saying we need to investigate, Willis just declares the notion of any evidence existing that might be cause for impeachment "bullshit". Although he does qualify that with a "thus far". But then he goes on to suggest that removal from office could occur even if the evidence never goes beyond "bullshit".

Which is not going to happen. So why the hell does he pontificate on the possibility of that improbable event? When that possibility is zero or close to it? I mean, maybe Republicans would go along with "bullshit" in order to get Pence in, but I think that (unless Trump seriously melts down) they would be doing so much damage to their party (angering Trump supporters) that they wouldn't dare do it.

The only reason I can come with (as to why Willis thinks Trump could be removed from office based on "bullshit") is because there is NO evidence he'd accept as non-bullshit. I mean, there is some pretty strong indications that Trump and his campaign violated the Logan act. This would be the law that seeks "to prevent the undermining of the government's position [by forbidding] unauthorized citizens [from negotiating] with foreign governments".

Violating the act is a felony. Michael Flynn resigned because of "phone calls in late 2016 with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak [during which] the two apparently discussed sanctions the Obama administration was developing to punish Russia over allegations of interference in the 2016 presidential election". A clear violation of the Logan act.

The NYT notes that "it remains unclear whether then-President-elect Trump... knew about Mr. Flynn's conversations with the Russian ambassador". But if evidence came to light that he did? I'm thinking that the Hartster would also view that as "bullshit". Even if Trump himself (in addition to Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Roger Stone, and Jeff Sessions in his capacity as a Trump campaign surrogate) is shown to have violated the Logan Act (by discussing foreign policy with Putin as president elect, for example), it will all be "bullshit".

"Move along, nothing to see here", in other words. According to the Donald Trump defending Alt-Right fake news fool Willis V. Hart, that is.

Image: The elfin Jeff Sessions, Paul Manafort, Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

OST #199

AGW 97% Consensus Figure Based On 4 Sources... According To The Voices In Willis Hart's Head

File this commentary by the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in the WTF category. I mean, if you can make sense of what he writes (re his severe climate change denialism)? I say you're guessing. Because that's all anyone can do re the following nonsense.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that One of the Sources that NASA Used to Substantiate its Fully Discredited 97% Consensus Figure Was an Op-Ed Piece by Some Socialist, Feed-the-Leviathan Historian (Naomi Oreskes) that No One Has Been Able to Replicate Yet (the Others Being Two College Papers and a Cartoonish Hit-Piece by that Delusional and Impudent Nonscientist/Jerk Who Founded "Skeptical Science")... Well, being that these are the same "scientists" who've constantly "adjusted" their statistics to make them fit their theory, we probably shouldn't be shocked. I sure as hell don't give it much credence. (10/4/2016 AT 4:34pm).

The key phrase in WTNPH's commentary is "the others being". Meaning he's wrapping it up as far as the "sources" go. NASA used just 4 sources to substantiate it's "discredited" 97% consensus figure is what this idiot is saying.

This is a "fact", even though Willis cites zero sources. And, get this, the very next day Willis Hart criticized "Alex Jones's multiple unnamed sources", and asked "do the voices in his head qualify?". Good question, I say.

I've really got to wonder if Willis isn't getting these facts concerning the AGW consensus via the voices in HIS head. Given the FACT (a real/sourced fact) that the 97% consensus figure was arrived at after looking at 12 THOUSAND "peer-reviewed climate science papers" (as per Skeptical Science).

Note the use of the term "peer reviewed". A historian is not a peer of a scientist. Neither are college students. Obviously a non-scientist is not a "peer" of an actual scientist. Although, maybe you could say all these unnamed (3 of 4) authors could be classified as "academics", and therefore academic peers. But I seriously doubt any papers from college students were included in that survey (of 12 THOUSAND papers). But I can't say for sure, given the fact that Willis doesn't source his claims.

So, given that he often declines to cite a source AND I can't comment on his blog (and ask him), I'm going to guess. And my guess is that "the voices in his head" are very likely his source. But even if there is a source (and he simply forgot to say what it is), I'm still not going to give what he says much credence. In fact, I say HELL NO, I absolutely don't buy his ludicrous claim of 4 sources, and give his claims ZERO credence.

BTW, if NASA looked at 4 sources to arrive at a 97% consensus figure, then at least 1 of those sources must have disagreed that global climate change is occurring and is human-driven. But 3 out of 4 is 75%, not 97%... so his numbers don't even add up.

Am I shocked? No, not really... given the fact that the Hartster is a total moron.

OST #180

On The Fact That Bernie Sanders, In His Capacity As A Recruiter For Vermont U, Hasn't Signed Many African American Players (A Fact That Suggests Racism By Mr. Sanders)

Except that this is not a fact. Bernie Sanders actually has absolutely nothing to do with who gets recruited to play basketball at Vermont U because he does NOT work or consult for the university. Although the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart seems confused on this matter.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that the University of Vermont's Basketball Teams (Men and Women) Are Comprised Mostly of White Players... What's the matter, Bernie? You don't like black people up there? (3/28/2016 AT 8:32pm).

As you can see from the images below (which show the teams Willis is referring to) there are Black players. If they didn't like Black people "up there" maybe they'd all be white? In any case WTF does Bernie Sanders have to do with which players the University of Vermont choses? Yeah, absolutely nothing.

Anyway, that Willis Hart, an individual who has demonstrated strong racial prejudices with numerous commentaries on his blog, is completely full of shit to suggest that Bernie Sanders is racist. Especially given the fact that Bernie Sanders' record of standing up for equality.

...Sanders has a 50-year history of standing up for civil and minority rights... As a student at the University of Chicago, Sanders was active in both the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). In 1962, he was arrested for protesting segregation in public schools in Chicago; the police came to call him an outside agitator, as he went around putting up flyers around the city detailing police brutality. While President Bill Clinton and most Democrats in Congress supported so-called welfare reform politics, Sanders not only voted against this policy change, but wrote eloquently against the dog whistle politics used to sell it, saying, "The crown jewel of the Republican agenda is their so-called welfare reform proposal. The bill, which combines an assault on the poor, women and children, minorities, and immigrants is the grand slam of scapegoating legislation, and appeals to the frustrations and ignorance of the American people along a wide spectrum of prejudices". A frequent critique of Sanders is that he is from a very white state. While this is true, he certainly has not ignored issues that matter to people of color. In 2002, he achieved a 93% rating from the ACLU and a 97% rating by the NAACP in 2006. (19 Examples of Bernie Sanders' Powerful Record on Civil and Human Rights Since the 1950s by Zaid Jilani. AlterNet 7/20/2015).

The facts show that Bernie Sanders has been fighting for equality for his whole life, so when Willis Hart says Bernie Sanders doesn't like Black people - the facts say he's full of shit.

And, as the AlterNet article points out, Sanders is from a state that is 77.4% White and 13.2% Black, so, that Vermont's basketball teams only have a few Black players is obviously due to demographics and not racism. Yet more proof that Willis Hart is a total moron!

Images 1+2: The 2015-2016 Vermont Catamounts Men's and Women's basketball rosters.

OST #124

On History Books Always Agreeing With Willis Hart & People Who Disagree With Him Not Reading Them

History books always seem to agree with Willis Hart, or at least he thinks they always do...

Willis Hart: I really think that Mr. Obama needs to open a history book and study what President Hoover did in response to the depression and hopefully garner a lesson or two from it... (7/8/2014 AT 3:14pm).

To everyone who disagrees with Willis he gives the advice that they should "open a history book". Even a highly educated man like our president is a dumb-dumb in the eyes of Willis the egomaniac.

Don't believe me? Here's an example of Willis denying the root cause of the Civil War was slavery. And calling me a "total moron" for not agreeing with him that the history books say this is the case.

Willis Hart: He's a total moron... Anybody who's taken as little as an introductory history course knows that slavery wasn't the predominant reason for Lincoln's actions or even the South's... (3/22/2014 AT 2:44pm).

Wrong. Lincoln was motivated by his desire to keep the union intact, but the South absolutely did cite slavery as THE motivating factor. African slavery was the "immediate cause" of secession according to Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens.

And, by the way, the history books disagree with Willis.

Willis is wrong on slavery not being the root cause of the civil war, and also wrong on the minimum wage being economically bad (the subject of the minimum wage is what Willis is ranting ranting against in the 1st quote from his blog).

The Center For American Progress: Raising the minimum wage would be good for our economy. A higher minimum wage not only increases workers' incomes - which is sorely needed to boost demand and get the economy going - but it also reduces turnover, cuts the costs that low-road employers impose on taxpayers, and pushes businesses toward a high-road, high-human-capital model. (Excerpt from a 9/13/2013 article, "Raising the Minimum Wage Would Help, Not Hurt, Our Economy").

Putting more money into the hands of workers would increase demand because workers would spend that money back into the economy. This argument that businesses would have to fire people is false. The increased demand would pay for the wage increase.

Instead Willis wants to keep workers poor just so those at the top can get a bigger piece of the pie. And Willis' fellow stooges over at his echo chamber actually have the audacity to call those desiring a living wage "greedy"!

It is quite shameful in my opinion. And this nonsense about history books always agreeing with Willis is idiotic. I am sure our president is well read when it comes to the history of America. He probably just does not read whatever Libertarian-authored history-revising tomes that the gullible Hartster reads.

OST #22

A Total Moron Ruminates On Securing the Release of Bergdahl

This utter stupidity from the blog of Willis Hart...

Will Hart: "On Securing the Release of Bergdahl"... What cost would have been TOO MUCH? That's what I want to know. I mean, what if they had wanted the Blind Sheik and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as well? Would that have been acceptable to secure the release of this character? And the fact that people died looking for him. That's what really pisses me off the most here. Frigging douche-bag. (6/7/2014 AT 7:37pm).

My God! Is this guy exceptionally obtuse or what? Omar Abdel-Rahman (AKA the Blind Sheik) is Egyptian. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is Pakistani. Neither of these individuals was ever a member of the Taliban. We negotiated with the Taliban for the release of 5 members of the Taliban. Why would the Taliban care about the Blind Sheik or KSM? Answer: they don't. They wanted THEIR people back.

If al Qaeda had captured Bergdahl we wouldn't have negotiated with them. The Taliban, for the record, has never been designated as a terrorist organization (Source).

Also, as reported by ThinkProgress, "none [of the five] were facing charges in either military or civilian courts for their actions"... and that "when wars end, prisoners taken custody must be released".

We are at war with the Taliban, and the Taliban never launched attacks against the US on non-Afghani soil. They did "harbor" al Qaeda, but the Taliban isn't al Qaeda. In fact, prior to 9/11, the Taliban made various offers to surrender or expel bin Laden, but the Bush administration was uninterested*.

In regards to taking the Taliban up on their offer to turn over bin Laden, the Hartster (and his buddy Dennis Marks) have mocked me many times (for saying we should have considered it), but the offer was genuine IMO. The Taliban did not want to be bombed or have their country invaded.

Anyway, the point is that, with this post, the dumb-dumb again conflates the two groups by moronically suggesting that the Taliban would want to negotiate for the release of members of al Qaeda. Stupid.

*Note: That the Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden is a point made by Sheldon Richman in his 5/6/2014 article for the Libertarian Reason Magazine titled "Why You Shouldn't Blame Bowe Bergdahl for Deserting in the Fog of Endless War". I also wrote about it in this post from my other blog "Sleeping with The Devil".

See also: SWTD #259.

OST #17