Saturday, May 31, 2014

Exciting New Literary Work From Novice Historian Willis Hart!

Now, there are some who would like to rewrite history - revisionist historians is what I like to call them ~ George W bush (dob 7/6/1946) 43rd POTUS (unelected) and starter of 2 illegal wars (via lying).

Announcing an exciting new work of historical revisionism by novice history reviser Willis Hart...

Willis Hart Pontificates on the War of Northern Aggression: A Dissertation in 1,001 Parts, Volume 1 (Where the History Books are Right and Where the History Books are Wrong).

Anyone going to be lined up at Barnes & Noble on the day this is released to get his or her copy personally autographed by Willis Hart?

Published by "The Crazy Southern Conservative History Revisionism Press" (Copyright 11/28/2014). Makes the perfect Christmas gift for your crazy Rightwing history-revising-enthusiast relative!

Rejected (unread) by more than a dozen major publishers due to Willis' REFUSAL to use paragraphs. Although, if he had used paragraphs they likely all would have rejected it anyway, due to it's major historical inaccuracies ("inaccuracies" some might refer to as canards).

Note: This post in response to a commentary from Willis regarding my "new Netflix series". See here for links to many more commentaries in which Willis Hart discusses (insults/lies about) Dervish Sanders (as the subject/headliner or in passing)... as well as posts written in response to comments submitted by me to his blog (published or not).

SWTD #257, wDel #63. See also OST #13.

Thursday, May 29, 2014

History Book Stupidity

Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence ~ Joseph Wood Krutch (11/25/1893 to 5/22/1970) an American writer, critic, and naturalist.

This recent post from the blog of one Willis Hart concerning the American Civil War. See if (after reading to the end) you can identify the faulty logic.

Willis Hart: "On the American Civil War". It wasn't a civil war. A civil war is when two participants vie for the control of one government and one piece of territory. All that the American South wanted to do was leave and start a new government... (5/28/2014 AT 9:46pm).

Perhaps he has a point, but do not all the history books unequivocally state that the war between the Southern States and the Northern States was a CIVIL WAR? I'm pretty sure they do. In fact I'd bet my life on it (Note: See update below).

So, what Willis is saying is that ALL the history books are WRONG?

In other words...

Willis Hart: The history books are all wrong. There was no American "civil war" that began shortly after Abraham Lincoln assumed office. Willis Hart = Right. Every history book ever written = wrong.*

Hmm... As I recall Will said something different when I disputed his assertion that the Civil War was NOT fought over slavery...

Will Hart: [Dervish Sanders is] 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).

So, what Will is saying here is that I would know he's right if only I had taken an introductory history course... which means that all the history books MUST agree with him. They ALL say the American Civil War (or "war of Northern aggression", or whatever you want to call it) was NOT fought over slavery.

So, in other words...

Willis Hart: The history books are all right, in that NONE of them say the Civil War was fought over slavery. Willis Hart = Right because every history book ever written agrees with him.*

So, I am dumb because I disagree with what the history books supposedly say (according to Mr. Hart) regarding what caused the Civil War, but Willis is smart for disagreeing with what the history books say about the war in which the South attempted to leave the union being a CIVIL war? I guess one thing can be said for certain about The Hartster's "logic", which is that he is quite confident that he is right.

Wrongly confident, in that the Civil War WAS fought over slavery, and that is what the history books say. I don't know what history books Willis is reading, but they aren't any written by the majority of historians who disagree with him, that's for sure (Civil War's Causes: Historians Largely United on Slavery, But Public Divided).

The public is divided because the "public" consists of a great many morons. The actual historians are NOT divided. An example of this tendency toward moron-like thinking is "logic" that says you can call someone a "total moron" for not agreeing with what you THINK the history books say, and then turn around and - in regards to the same fricking subject - say the history books are wrong.

I don't know about you, but this is the "logic" of a moron, in my strong opinion.

FYI, in regards to Willis' point, according to this online dictionary, a civil war is "a war between factions or regions of the same country". This definition says nothing about a civil war being when two participants vie for the control of one government and one piece of territory.

Perhaps the moron should have looked up the definition before he authored his moronic post.

*Note: Not an actual Willis Hart quote, simply my gathering of what he's saying given past commentaries and statements from his blog. Also, the first post quote is an excerpt and NOT the full commentary.

Video: the Young Turks Cenk Uygur says "Confederates were the ones who held the slaves [and it was slavery] that ripped the country apart and caused the civil war. ... On what planet, man? (was slavery NOT the primary cause)".

4/9/2016 Update: Regarding me saying above that "perhaps he has a point" concerning the Civil War not being a civil war, actually confirms that WTNPH is wrong. Because (as per the definition) a civil war is "a war between factions or regions of the same country". This definition says nothing about a civil war being when two participants vie for the control of one government and one piece of territory.

SWTD #256, wDel #62.

Friday, May 23, 2014

On The Idiot's Hackneyed Assertion That Leftists Claim *All* Segregationist Dixiecrats Ultimately Became Republicans

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats ~ Richard Nixon (1/9/1913 to 4/22/1994) the 37th POTUS, serving from 1969 to 1974, when he became the only president to resign the office.

This recent straw man from the blog of a fiscally Conservative Libertarian-leaning idiot..

Willis Hart: On the Hackneyed Leftist Assertion that all of those Segregationist Dixiecrats Ultimately Became Republicans... I gotta go, false, on this one, folks. Al Gore Sr. never became a Republican. John Stennis never became a Republican. Sam Ervin never became a Republican. James Eastland never became a Republican. Everett Jordan never became a Republican. William Fulbright never became a Republican. George Wallace never became a Republican. Lester Maddox never became a Republican... I mean, yeah, you did have Strom Thurmond switching over but one is a hell of a lot different than all and this is one bromide that really needs to be put to rest, I'm thinking. (5/20/2014 AT 8:18pm).

The argument, I'm fairly certain, is that the majority of the vote that used to go Democrat from racially biased Southerners ultimately flipped to the Republican Party. The argument isn't that every single racially-biased Democratic politician who identified with the Dixiecrats switched the political affiliation to GOP.

How easy it is to disprove an argument when you set it up as a straw man! The straw man in this case being the inclusion of the word "ALL" as well as narrowing who we're talking about to politicians. People become set in their ways and cling to their bigotries. That many Dixiecrats stayed with the Democratic Party until their deaths is NOT a big surprise.

The ACTUAL Leftist argument is that the vote of those inclined to racial bigotry flipped from Democrat/Dixiecrat to Republican over time as those people (had a change of heart) or, (more frequently) died. And it is a known fact that Richard Nixon specifically courted the racist Southern vote (people who would have, if they had been alive during the time of the Dixiecrats) voted Democrat.

But this attempt to smear modern day Democrats with the sins of Democrats of yore is old hat for the Hartster. Conveniently he ignores the reality of the situation (which is that the Party that represents the racist vote flipped from D to R) in order to paint the Democrats as the Party of the "real" racists.

The Truth About Republican Racism and the "Southern Strategy": it's easy to say Lincoln was a Republican and the KKK was largely built by Democrats, but by doing so you only prove your own ignorance of history. You're ignoring the fact that as Democrats evolved to embrace equality for African Americans, Southern racists were left looking for a new political party — and they found one that not only embraced their racism and bigotry, it sought it out. (Excerpt from the Forward Progress 6/4/2013 article by Allen Clifton).

What the actual takeaway from this history should be is that the Democrats progressed while Republicans have regressed. The fact is that now/today it is the Repubs who most racially biased voters identify with (the Tea Party wing of the GOP in particular).

Wikipedia: The Republican Party was founded in the Northern states in 1854 by anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex-Whigs, and ex-Free Soilers [and] quickly became the principal opposition to the dominant Southern Democratic Party.

[But the Republican Party eventually turned away from their anti-slavery roots...]

Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery before the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.

The [Southern] strategy was first adopted under future Republican President Richard Nixon and Republican Senator Barry Goldwater in the late 1960s. The strategy was successful in winning 5 formerly Confederate states in both the 1964 and 1968 presidential elections. It contributed to the electoral realignment of some Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party.

(Excerpts from the Wikipedia Pages "Republican Party (United States)/Founding and 19th century" AND "Southern Strategy".

Talk of the Democratic Party having a racist history (which it does) somehow excusing/negating the Republican Party's racist PRESENT is one bromide that really needs to be put to rest, I'm thinking. And we can also awaken people to the FACT about where the Dixiecrat (racist) vote went too (it went to the GOP... which actively courted it).

7/6/2015 Update: Willis frequently posts on the same topic (and says essentially the same thing) many times. As if restating the same belief over and over will validate his bullshit. That, or he simply forgets he already wrote a blog post on the topic.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Al Gore Jr., John Stennis, Sam Ervin, James Eastland, Everett Jordan, William Fulbright, George Wallace, and Lester Maddox All Got Buried with Their Democratic Boots on... So much for the Democratic racists changed parties narrative. (7/1/2015 AT 9:36am).

As I already pointed out, it is NOT the "narrative" that the politicians changed parties. The "narrative" (reality) is that the voters switched parties. And I'm referring to "voters" as in people who vote, not individuals. The fact that the South is solidly Republican is proof positive that this "narrative" is 100 percent accurate. That Willis insists that the "narrative" is that the politicians changed parties is another of Willis' infamous strawmen (the reason why I call him "Willis I love strawmen Hart").

SWTD #255, wDel #61.

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Howard Dean Tells Truth About Republicans & Purveyors of Untruth Slander Him With Old Lies Re So-Called "Dean Scream"

...the obvious conclusion about voter identification laws: They are enacted as a barrier to the franchise, an un-American tactic hatched by conservatives to prevent certain people from voting ~ Excerpt from a PennLive Op-Ed by Cynthia Tucker. This, in her words, is the obvious conclusion about voter identification laws arrived at by federal Judge Richard Posner, one of the nation's most respected conservative jurists (7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals).

"Republicans aren't American, should leave the country" Howard Dean said "while speaking at a fundraiser for Colorado Congressional candidate Andrew Romanoff" (paraphrase of Dean comments from 5/13/2014). A comment from Dean that prompted a post from the Libertarian/classical Liberal/self-described "purveyor of truth" Rational Nation. A commentary in which Mr. Nation brings up the infamous "Dean Scream".

The tolerance hyperbole of Howard Dean. He wants republicans to move to Russia. Personally I am hoping for Howard to figure continue to speak out vocally. And loudly. Very loudly. The public just might get to see another Howard tirade like the one that ended his presidential aspirations.

The intolerance of the left for views that differ from their own equals or exceeds the intolerance of the right. Examples of intolerance can be found daily on the left as well as the right. It is nauseating as well as hypocritical. But don't expect either side to acknowledge their own brand of PC and intolerance. (Howard Dean Rant, a 5/21/2014 commentary from the Rational Nation USA blog).

OK, so never mind the fact that this is a lie disproved shortly after the clip began playing ad infinitum on the TV news programs.

Diane Sawyer [reported] ...that Dean was using a special microphone that night that filters out crowd noise to heighten his voice; other videotapes taken illustrate that his "scream" was barely audible to his live audience. (CNN Says It Overplayed Dean's Iowa Scream, Truthout 2/9/2014).

Getting fired up and speaking with enthusiasm is NOT a "tirade". Howard did not "speak very loudly", nor can his speech honestly be described as Dean "bellowing like a beast" (another negative description of Dean's speech used by a dishonest detractor).

As for the un-Americaness of Republicans, Dean tells it like it is. He speaks, of course, about Republican efforts to disenfranchise (mostly) Democratic voters. We all know this is taking place. I've written about it previously on this very blog, so there is no need to go into it in great detail (follow the link if you want details).

Further dishonesty is this framing of Democratic objections to Republicans wishing to disenfranchise legally entitled-to-vote individuals as "intolerance". It's "intolerant" of Progressives to not be tolerant of Republican homophobia and it's "intolerant" of Progressives to not be tolerant of Republicans who want to take away your right to vote. Or so say fools like the individual I quote above (in regards to the "intolerance" of wanting everyone to vote, at least. Being a Libertarian this individual doesn't subscribe to homophobia. I'll give him kudos for that, at least).

But do rational/thinking people believe this nonsensical definition-defying logic? The term "intolerance" doesn't apply to people objecting to your intolerance, Conservatives! And actively seeking to make it harder for people to vote in order to make it easier for Republicans to win isn't "intolerance" either, Conservatives and Libertarians!

Howard Dean doesn't want Republicans to move to Russia; he wants everyone who is legally-entitled to vote to be able to vote. Republicans do not. That is the truth here, and anyone spinning otherwise (lying about him wanting Repubs to move to Russia or going on a "tirade". Or lying about practically non-existent voter fraud being a "cancer") is doing so because they agree with the Republican goal of winning elections through dishonest means. In my opinion.

Sure it may have been hyperbolic for Dean to talk about Repubs moving to Russia, but it sure as hell is NOT "intolerance" (and hyperbole can sometimes be a useful tool, IMO). And *I* find it nauseating that some fool who thinks he's better than the majority of the country (who vote either D or R) would insist that "intolerance" should include objecting to the disenfranchising of voters that the Repubs desire.

But untruths like this are to be expected from a liar who loves to play the "both sides are equally quilty" card (that's "guilty" misspelled with a "q", because that's just how this deluded individual rolls).

Audio Description: The truth about the "Dean scream"... not what it seemed. (1:49)

SWTD #254, lDel #18

Friday, May 16, 2014

There Will Be Blood. The 2nd American Revolution Begins Today!

Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us ~ Patrick Henry (5/29/1736 to 6/6/1799) A "Founding Father" who served as the 1st and 6th post-colonial Governor of Virginia, from 1776 to 1779 and from 1784 to 1786.

Or perhaps it is the 3rd? If the original revolution under which America separated from England was the first, and the Civil War (the Southern States declaring their independence from the Union) was the second... then today is the day the third American revolution begins!

Whichever the case may be, TODAY is day one of the "American Spring", or "Operation American Spring" (OAS) as it's planners have taken to calling it. OAS leader Harry Reily (an ex-US Military Colonel), is positive at least 10 million patriots - and upwards of 30 million patriots - will march on Washington today (5/16/2014) and stay there as long as necessary to force Obama from office. (Republicans Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are on their hit list as well, as conspirators and/or enablers, presumably).

It worked in Egypt where presidents Hosni Mubarak and Mohammed Morsi were both forced from office - so it is certainly possible that Obama could be removed in the same way? The Right-wingers are sick of Obama's tyrannical violations of the Constitution, as well as the liberal-left-progressives, the Marxists, and all the other the anti-freedom and liberty people supporting this administration.

Harry Riley hopes Obama is removed peacefully, but notes "that so far, peaceful protests haven't brought citizens much luck". Terry Trussell, OAS's chief of staff says protestors should be "expecting the unexpected - including a drone strike". Trussell adds that "these guys may step down and we'll all pat each other on the back and say 'God bless America, let's get back to the Constitution and move on'".

However, if that doesn't happen, the leaders of OAS say they are prepared for deaths in order that they might Take Their Country Back. "Patriots may be killed, wounded, [or] incarcerated" in the process of overthrowing Obama. It isn't as if they have any choice, seeing as they "have no faith in the ballot box any longer", and are convinced that Obama was elevated to the White House by fraudulent means.

After the "socialist-fascist-communist-Marxist dictatorial, tyrannical system" is overthrown, "organizers said they will install a tribunal led by GOP figures such as Sen. Ted Cruz and former congressman Allen West". Obama will be sent to Gitmo. According to Riley, OAS cannot fail, as it is "bathed in prayer and will have divine support". Furthermore Riley vows, "my knees will not touch the surface as a result of some pissant occupant of the White House... I will fall to my death standing if necessary".

The bottom line is that Obama will leave peacefully or there will be blood! Given these facts, I expect this to be a HUGE news story... Or not... Mother Jones reminds us that, "in 2010, Kate Vandemoer, a birther activist, announced... [a] revolution to Remove the Usurper from office. The plan was to bring 10,000 protestors to the Mall, Congress, and the White House to lay siege to the administration [and] ...Two people showed up".

Also, "in October, the Truckers Ride for the Constitution rally... held outside Washington, with the aim of arresting House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Diane Feinstein... [and, while] organizers expected thousands of people to attend... [only] thirty truckers showed up".

So, the likelihood of 10 to 30 million Right-wingers who want to "take their country back" marching on, and occupying the capitol MIGHT not be to high. But if 10 to 30 million people do show up? Then a new Far-Right government could soon take control of the country. I don't know about you, but I'm going to be watching the news tonight to see if Obama is ousted and America is "taken back" by the nutjobs and racists who have had enough of our duly elected BLACK Democrat president.

See Also: Patridiots get their coup d'etat on! by Shaw Kenawe of Progressive Eruptions, 5/15/2014

SWTD #253

Saturday, May 10, 2014

A Disgusting Backdoor Defense of Donald Sterling

You think I'm a racist? You think I have anything in the world but love for everybody? ... You know I'm not a racist ~ Donald Sterling (dob 4/26/1934) the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers professional basketball franchise, who, on 4/29/2014, was banned from the NBA for life after recordings of him making racist comments were made public.

Can you believe anyone would have the nerve to post a commentary defending the racist Clipper's owner Donald Sterling? Or, downplay and minimizing what happened, which is what the blogger Willis Hart has been doing on his site with 2 commentaries so far going after people OTHER than Sterling himself...

Willis Hart: I really don't have a problem with the NBA throwing the book at this asshole. But there does seem to be a double-standard. Ron Artest, a player, went into the stands and started beating people up. Latrell Sprewell, a player, strangled his coach. Both of these dudes only got a one year suspension. Is the NBA really saying that idiotic statements said in the privacy of your own home are a more serious offense than criminal acts of violence; assaults and batteries? That certainly does seem to be the case. (5/8/2014 AT 9:52pm).

So, the Hartster realizes that he shouldn't be defending Sterling, due to how racist what he said was, but he obviously wants to. The way to do it? Complain about the "hypocrisy" of a "double standard" of those "persecuting" Sterling... and rail against that. In part 1 of Willis' complaining about Sterling's persecutors he said, "[Sterling is] unquestionably an asshole. BUT I am just as much disturbed by the fact that somebody taped him without his knowledge and in his own home". (my emphasis).

Now he's complaining about players doing naughty things and being punished less (another "yes, but"). However, if Willis had bothered researching WHY the league wants not to suspend Sterling, but get rid of him - he would have found that it's a money thing...

LA Times: Major advertisers of the Los Angeles Clippers are fleeing in droves as they rush to distance themselves from comments about blacks attributed to team owner Donald Sterling. A growing list of more than a dozen sponsors, including Virgin America, Kia and State Farm, are canceling or suspending their deals with the basketball team... The statements could cause tens of millions of dollars in damage to the Clippers and the NBA, experts say. (Clippers advertisers flee in midst of Sterling scandal, 4/28/2014).

So, what the doofus Hart fails to realize - or never bothered finding out, due to his strong desire to find SOME angle by which he could defend Sterling - is that the league had to get rid of Sterling to appease the sponsors.

This isn't a matter of "idiotic statements said in the privacy of your own home" VERSUS "criminal acts of violence; assaults and batteries"! It's a matter of one guy's offense COSTING them, whereas sponsors didn't say anything about Ron Artest or Latrell Sprewell (and so they only got a light punishment).

For an individual who worships at the altar of the all-mighty dollar like the Hartster, this oversight is surprising. Or perhaps not, given how strong we can all see his desire to defend Sterling is. Even though he knows he shouldn't... which is why he preferences his comments by calling Sterling an "asshole" (first commentary) - and then attacking Al Sharpton... and next saying Sterling should have the book thrown at him (second commentary) - but then attacking two players who previously behaved badly.

And blatantly racist and disgusting comments are "idiotic statements"? Really? Yeah, I think most people would describe racist comments like Sterling's as offensive and beyond the pale and NOT go with a lesser pejorative like "idiotic". And that he said them "in the privacy of his own home" really isn't relative at all to this conversation. Regardless of where he made them, they are public knowledge now.

From the LiveJournal Blog Sex and Race...

Defending Racism: Like a drinking problem or drug habit, racism works best when no one is willing to talk about it, and even better, when everyone works together to cover up the problem. The most important thing is to make sure that you can hide your problem from yourself - it's key in maintaining those 3 beliefs that will keep you racist for a lifetime!

Sounds to me like this is exactly what Mr. Hart is doing. In neither of his posts does he discuss racism - instead downplaying it ("idiotic comments"), and then going on the attack against other targets. Why? Possibly because Willis has some racial biases he's hiding from himself? If so I'd say he has that in common with Sterling. I can't say for certain, but this individual does have a history of accusing Liberals of "playing the race card" - which is how those with racial biases OFTEN describe what's going on when "a liberal" (or a Black person) REACTS to racist behavior (usually from the Right). And, BTW, Sterling is a Republican.

Regardless, I find the sordid saga of Willis' backdoor defense of Sterling to be disgusting.

Also, I don't think I really buy that it hasn't occurred to Mr. Hart that the NBA might want to get rid of Sterling because he's costing the league money. I mean, to get rid of those other two guys would have cost THEM. Remember that the NFL took back Michael Vick (who currently plays for the New York Jets). Harsher penalties for Artest, Sprewell and Vick would have cost the sports franchise owners... but getting rid of Sterling is only going to cost Sterling. And it will appease the sponsors thus saving the league money. Really, it isn't that hard to figure out.

Image Description: A graph that shows those on the Right and those on the Left have increasingly separate realities about race. I have no idea how Willis Hart feels about 12 years a slave winning best picture, but he did defend George Zimmerman with posts in the double digits, and he must be opposed to Sterling being forced to sell the Clippers (I'm guessing). I mean, why should someone be forced to sell something they own because of "idiotic statements said in the privacy of [their] own home". That would be ridiculous, right?

SWTD #252, wDel #60.

Thursday, May 08, 2014

On the Deniers' Claim that Climate Change Isn't Warming The Deep Oceans

My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it's rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have ~ Freeman Dyson (dob 12/15/1923) Theoretical physicist and mathematician, but not a climate scientist.

They're just making this shit up as they go along. They have to in that the evidence just isn't there for them. How else to describe the "logic" that causes a denier to say the warming is "hiding" when such claims are easily debunked...

Skeptical Science: [This denialist claim] focuses on one small part of the climate system (the atmosphere) while ignoring the largest part (the oceans). ... Dana Nuccitelli [an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento who has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis] considered the warming of the oceans (both shallow and deep), land, atmosphere, and ice, and showed that global warming has not slowed in recent years.

[In fact Nuccitelli and team found] that the OHC [Ocean Heat Content] increase for the 700-2000 meter layer... accounts for approximately 30% of the 0-2000 meter increase in recent decades". (Nuccitelli et al. 2012 Show that Global Warming Continues. Posted to the Skeptical Science website on 10/12/2012 by Dana Nuccitelli, Robert way, Rob Painting and John Cook).

Real science to the deniers is "making shit up as they go along"! Oh, and Skeptical Science is a "virulent anti-science smear site" and people who read it and conclude these are real scientists who know what they're doing are "ignorant, uneducated, stupid [individuals] whose entire psychic well-being is apparently contingent upon not being convinced". Not being convinced that AGW is a hoax, a fraud and a conspiracy, that is.

Yeah, I'd believe that... IF the denier was talking about himself! There are plenty of scientific papers that conclude that the earth's oceans are acting as a heat sink, and damned if that doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense. A lot more sense than claiming that climate researchers are "making shit up".

Those Climategate emails got leaked (and that was just one institution), yet a global conspiracy in which an overwhelming majority of climate scientists put forward "faked" research they just MADE UP is still a safely guarded secret?

Obviously laughable allegations such as these are dismissed by rationally thinking persons. After looking into it, of course. If one does that they will find that such conspiracy theories are both easily debunked and usually put forward by non-climate scientists and/or scientists funded by those whose profits would be hurt if we took climate change seriously.

But the AGW deniers seek out the reassuring lies that "debunk" the inconvenient truth. Because it's a truth their psychic well-being can't handle, apparently. Maybe it's time for the deniers to throw in the towel? Although the problem may be that these people are of a much lesser stock and simply not capable of it.

(I mean that last line sarcastically, of course. Labeling those who disagree with you as being of a "lesser stock" is a typical ad hominem insult from the climate change denying Willis Hart, a stuck-up individual who is SO CONVINCED that he's right and YOU'RE WRONG that he can't simply agree to disagree. Disagreeing with him is PROOF that you're stooopid).

SWTD #251, wDel #59.

Wednesday, May 07, 2014

Causes of The Civil War According to Ken Burns' Documentary Series (Episode 1)

When the Right ponders why the Republican Party continues to struggle with race, conservatives should remember it's not just "Barack the Magic Negro" CDs, or Republican congressman referring to Barack Obama as "uppity" and "boy", or the Ashley Todd hoax, or "Obama Bucks". It's also that no one seems too terribly surprised to hear a Republican official in the 21st century refer to the Civil War as the "War of Northern Aggression" ~ Steve Benen (dob 5/15/1973) a producer for The Rachel Maddow Show who was the lead blogger for the Washington Monthly's "Political Animal" blog (8/2008 to 1/2012) as quoted in a 2/11/2009 blog post.

An alternate title for this post could be "On the Ludicrous Notion that the Civil War Wasn't Fought Over Slavery". Ludicrous according to historians on the subject who are largely in agreement on the causes of the Civil war. Ludicrous as well according to the highly lauded and award winning Ken Burns documentary. A documentary that won 40 major film and television awards, including two Emmy Awards, two Grammy Awards, Producer of the Year Award from the Producers Guild of America, People's Choice Award, Peabody Award and numerous others.

Although some history rewriting enthusiasts might claim that the series is "an anti-history smear documentary", the fact is that the film is correct (at least) in regards to the underlying cause, which is that the seceding states most certainly did fight for their independence from the United States in the name of slavery and the racial hierarchy that underlies it.

Even someone critical of the series, James M. Lundberg, an assistant professor of history at Lake Forest College who says the series is "a deeply misleading and reductive film that often loses historical reality in the mists of Burns' sentimental vision and the romance of Foote's anecdotes" affirms that the Confederates "were fighting for their independence from the United States in the name of slavery and the racial hierarchy that underlay it".

I just watched part one, and although it is titled "Causes" THE CAUSE, only the first hour is devoted to THE CAUSE (singular). The remaining half hour covers the attack on Fort Sumter and the Battle of Bull Run, after which both sides in the conflict realized their initial beliefs that each would win quickly was shattered.

During that first hour not once were tariffs mentioned. States' rights came up, but it was in the context of the South wanting to leave the union after Lincoln was elected because they worried that signaled the end of slavery (or, the beginning of the end of it). The fact is that ALL the reasons that lead up to the war were, according to the Ken Burns documentary, slavery related... hence the title of the episode THE CAUSE. Even the history rewriting enthusiast (HRE) mentions in his post that "Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation".

(John C. Calhoun, VP under John Quincy Adams, is best known for his intense and original defense of slavery as a positive good rather than a necessary evil. Although Calhoun died eleven years before the start of the American Civil War, he was an inspiration to the secessionists of 1860–61).

So, even the HRE admits that the populace was "agitated" to go to war to defend slavery and was NOT agitated to do the same over a tariff. Then he quotes the "North American Review" (Boston, October 1862) which wrote that "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion. Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, to fire the Southern heart, and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced".

Pretext? If slavery fired the Southern heart, how the HELL can it be called a "pretext"? If it agitated and fired the hearts of the population to go to war, does that not point to slavery being THE cause? I say undoubtedly YES. Yet the HRE labels me a "total moron", and insists, if I opened an introductory history book, I would find that tariffs or states' rights or some reason other than slavery lead to war (and finally the HRE lies about me calling him "evil" as part of my "narrative").

The only "narrative" I'm pushing here is the one that comports with the truth. A truth, as I pointed out previously, historians are largely in regards to. Slavery led to the Civil War, and the historians interviewed in this first episode of Ken Burns' documentary are no different.

Having just watched it, I copied down some quotes - both historical and by present day historians - which I present below. As you will see, these quotes all support the historically correct version of events, which is that the underlying cause of the conflict was slavery.

Quotes from Part 1 of the Ken Burns' Civil War Documentary, "The Cause"

0:09:10 For me, the picture of the Civil War as a historic phenomenon, is not on the battlefield. It's not about weapons; it's not about soldiers. Except to the extent that weapons and soldiers at that crucial moment joined a discussion about something higher; about humanity, about human dignity, about human freedom ~ Barbara Fields, a professor of American history at Columbia University. Her focus is on the history of the American South.

(0:17:03) If there was a single event that caused the war, it was the establishment of the United States in independence from Great Britain with slavery still a part of it's heritage ~ Barbara Fields.

(0:26:18) As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal". We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except Negroes". Soon it will read "all men are created equal, except Negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics". When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy ~ Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln Letters.

(0:27:25) A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other ~ Abraham Lincoln, from his House Divided Speech.

(0:31:17) Herman Melville called him the meteor of the war ~ narrator David McCullough [Quote from Melville's "The Portent" (1859), a short poem about White abolitionist John Brown and his hanging following the raid on Harpers Ferry, which was an attempt by Brown to start an armed slave revolt in 1859 by seizing a United States arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia.]

(0:32:22) John Brown becomes the single most important factor, in my opinion, in bringing on the war. The militia system in the South had been a joke before this, becomes a viable instrument as the Southern militias begin to take a true form. And the South begins to worry about Northerners agitating the Blacks to murder them in their beds ~ Ed Bearss, a military historian and author known for his work on the American Civil War and World War II eras.

(0:35:45) Southerners saw the election of Lincoln as a sign that the Union was about to be radicalized, and that they were about to be taken in directions that they did not care to go. The abolitionist aspect of it was very strong, and they figured they were about to lose what they called their property. And faced ruin ~ Shelby Foote, an American historian and novelist who wrote The Civil War: A Narrative, a massive, three-volume history of the war.

(0:42:31) Our new Government is founded upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the White man ~ Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, from his March 1861 Cornerstone Speech, which declared that African slavery was the "immediate cause" of secession.

(0:50:15) The first gun that was fired at Fort Sumter sounded the death-knell of Slavery. They who fired it were the greatest practical abolitionists this nation has produced ~ Assistant Adjutant-General Moses C. Brown, in a 6/28/1863 NYT article.

(1:09:47) Teach the rebels and traitors that the price they are to pay for the attempt to abolish this government must be the abolition of slavery ~ Frederick Douglass, an African-American social reformer, orator, writer and statesman. After escaping from slavery, he became a leader of the abolitionist movement.


While there are those who criticize Ken Burns' Civil War documentary, I haven't been able to find a SINGLE slam, knock or nitpick from one damn source that even suggests Ken Burns' documentary is wrong for declaring unequivocally that the Civil War was fought over slavery - and that *IS* what "The Cause" concludes says. It doesn't "conclude" it at all, it states it as a matter of FACT, beginning with a summary of slavery in the United States and proceeding from there for an HOUR stating the war was fought because of SLAVERY, SLAVERY, (and also) SLAVERY.

Which makes me wonder, what kind of idiot writes literally dozens of posts declaring this fact "ludicrous", cites a bunch of reasons that have to do with Lincoln being willing to do practically anything to avoid war and keep the Union intact, and then basically admits slavery was the reason, but that it was "political"?

No, what was political were the solutions proposed by Lincoln for keeping the Union from breaking up. It was extraordinarily clear from his writings and statements that he strongly opposed slavery - but politicians compromise, which is what "A" though "D" on the HRE's list of "proofs" that the Civil War wasn't about slavery ARE - political compromises (or "ploys") designed to keep the union whole.

Frankly I'm surprised the HRE has never referred to the Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggression", which, according to the Urban Dictionary, is a "Southern term for the American Civil War that is mostly used by those who think the south should have won". While I do not believe the HRE thinks the South should have won, he is a Lincoln-hater who is absolutely convinced the North was the aggressor and that the Civil War should NOT have been fought (and the Southern states should have been allowed to secede).

Coincidentally, this is where one of the Burns' documentary critics finds fault with the series. Leon F. Litwack, an American historian whose scholarship focuses on slavery, as quoted in the book Ken Burns' The Civil War: Historians Respond, complains about Shelby Foote "refusing to concede that slavery defined the Confederacy as a nation [and] for wishing, in retrospect, that compromise had prevented the war in the first place.

Sounds like a new series for the HRE to take up... instead of slamming Michael Mann for "lying" about global climate change, he can slam historians like Leon F. Litwack who "lie" about the Civil War. But then the HRE would have to acknowledge that such people actually exist. The HRE might argue that Mr. Litwack is imaginary, given what information he THINKS is contained in introductory history books.

SWTD #250, wDel #58.

Saturday, May 03, 2014

On the Assertion That Changing The Atmospheric CO2 Content From 3 Molecules Per 10,000 To 4 Molecules Per 10,000 Over a 130 Year Time-Frame Is An Infinitesimal Increase & Therefore No Big Deal

Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either ~ Albert Einstein (3/14/1879 to 4/18/1955) a German-born theoretical physicist who developed the general theory of relativity, one of the two pillars of modern physics (alongside quantum mechanics). He is best known for his mass–energy equivalence formula E = mc2.

According to the "lumanarious" AGW skeptic Roy Spencer (an individual oft quoted by the blogger Willis Hart) "the idea that severe weather, snowstorms, droughts, or floods have gotten worse due to the atmosphere now having 4 parts per 10,000 CO2, rather than 3 parts per 10,000, is... sketchy".

Mr. Spencer's number one fan agrees, saying (in a recent post) that people thinking that this infenitesimal increase will cause a global catatastrophe "is exactly what happens when science and government crawl into bed together".

I don't know, Willis. Is this increase really as insignificant as you think it is? Information I've found suggests this increase is really a lot larger than you seem to think. Dr. Barry W. Brook, a research Professor at the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute, explains - on his blog "Brave New Climate" - just how large this increase in the trace gas actually is...

Barry Brook: Every cubic metre of air contains roughly 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of CO2 (10 to the 22nd power), [which is] a rather large number. ... let's try to get a feel for just how large a number this is. The number of stars within the 14-billion-light-year radius of the visible universe (Hubble volume) is estimated to be thirty billion trillion, i.e., 3 x 10 to the 22nd power. Thus, a mere 3 cubic metres of air, which would sit comfortably on most dining tables, contains as many CO2 molecules as there are stars in the vast span of the visible Universe. Bearing these mind-boggling numbers in mind, it's perhaps not quite so hard to understand how trace atmospheric gases in our atmosphere really do a good job at intercepting infrared radiation. (CO2 is a trace gas, but what does that mean?).

Sounds to me like this 33.3 percent increase is actually quite large and very much a cause for concern. Also, Mr. Spencer's assertion that something is small when it is actually large is but one reason why this dude can't be trusted. Spencer says "hey, IPCC, quit misusing the term risk", but doing nothing when CO2 levels are increasing so dramatically sounds very risky to me.

Also according to Mr. Spencer there are "scientific studies which suggest that more CO2 will cause most vegetation to grow better, with more drought tolerance and more efficient use of water", but this is quite laughable, and yet another reason why this individual should not be trusted.

Skeptical Science says "it is possible to boost growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions inside of greenhouses. [However] such claims fail to take into account that increasing the availability of one substance that plants need requires other supply changes for benefits to accrue. ... Plants cannot live on CO2 alone; a complete plant metabolism depends on a number of elements. It is a simple task to increase water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth? Just as increasing the amount of starch alone in a person's diet won't lead to a more robust and healthier person, for plants additional CO2 by itself cannot make up for deficiencies of other compounds and elements".

I must say that the more I learn of these AGW denying "scientists" the more sketchy they seem to be. Seems to me that they use wishful thinking, false assertions of "uncertainty", and flawed data to convince dupes like the Hartster that global climate change isn't happening, or (if it is), it will be beneficial.

To that I say "come on, AGW deniers, you can't have it both ways!". Yet they seem to think they can deny AGW is happening AND say that *if it is* it will be beneficial. This is laughable in my opinion. As for what happens when science and government crawl into bed together... my response would be that the truth is sought? I mean, the scientists could still earn a living if they didn't lie (if that is what you think they're doing). So why would they lie?

Roy Spencer is earning a living by "not lying" (if you believe that is what he's doing), so obviously it can be done. But I guess if you're a AGW denier you have no choice but to believe that the 97% of climate experts who agree are total f**king morons... or liars... or both. Hell, why not believe both? The AGW deniers already believe that BOTH AGW isn't happening but *if it is* it will be beneficial.

It MUST be a conspiracy, otherwise their denialism makes no sense, hence they come up with absurd conspiracy theories like a consensus being "exactly what happens when science and government crawl into bed together".

SWTD #249, wDel #57. See also OST #9.