Friday, May 10, 2013

Severe Moderate Delusions: Miscellaneous 1

Rockefeller Republican (often termed "moderate Republican") refers to a faction of the United States Republican Party who hold moderate to liberal views on some issues similar to those of Nelson Rockefeller. The term largely fell out of use by the end of the twentieth century... Modern Rockefeller Republicans are typically center-right... and are often... culturally liberal. In general, Rockefeller Republicans oppose socialism and the redistribution of wealth while supporting some regulation of business and federal social programs... ~ Definition of Rockefeller Republican from Wikipedia (excerpt).

Severe moderate delusions are what the blogger who believes he is far smarter than you Willis Hart suffers from. As any long time reader of this blog knows, I've authored many posts in which I rebut Hart nonsense. Most of the time the nonsense I'm rebutting has to do with global climate change denialism, and today is no different. Actually, I've decided to respond to a couple miscellaneous Hart commentaries I believe show the most severe delusion he suffers from is that he is a Moderate.

The first of three is related to climate change denialism peripherally, in that he takes exception to the actions of some academics who believe the majority of climatologists aren't trying to flimflam us by faking global warming (intelligent people he has taken to calling "warmists").

Willis Hart: At the intersection of fascism, stupidity, and intolerance [we have] two San Jose state professors [who are] posturing to burn a book by climate-change skeptics (Post: "At the Intersection of Fascism, Stupidity, And Intolerance" 5/9/2013).

These professors obviously have no tolerance for stupidity. I don't know where fascism comes in though. Burning a book means you think corporations are people and the wealthy bribing our politicians to do their bidding is awesome? While I do not agree with burning books, even those spreading misinformation "researched" by authors funded by big oil (most likely), this does not qualify as fascism.

Seriously though, I really do not agree with book burning. I wouldn't even suggest such a book be tossed from the school library (if it were already there). But I would question why it was there in the first place and strongly suggest no more be acquired. Also, If I were one of these professors and a student of mine referenced one of these denialist books in a paper - well, lets just say that student wouldn't get an "A".

Anyway, the school realized that the optics of book burning (even if the book has an agenda of keeping us addicted to oil) aren't good. Fox Nooz reports that a picture posted on the schools website (in which a lighter is held under one of the books) was quickly "disappeared". The caption originally attached to the image read, "this week we received a deluge of free books from the Heartland Institute". How kind of the Heartland Institute to send them some anti-science big oil propaganda tomes!

Now I can understand why these professors acted irrationally. They were obviously upset at the Heartland Institute for having the balls to push their wealthy funders "don't worry be happy while we rake in the cash" planet destroying agenda on them! They should have refused the books, arguing that anti-science propaganda has no place in an institution of higher learning.

An apology was issued a short while later that described the "book burning" as "an ill-conceived attempt at satire", and further noted that "the university does not condone book burning for any reason". I forgive them and certainly do not believe this incident means the professors are fascists or stupid - just fed up with the fact that the denialists are winning (in light of our not signing Kyoto and cap-and-trade legislation being shot down).

Willis Hart: [Concerning Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow: Are they] twin sons from different mothers? [That is] pretty much my theory (Post: "Twin Sons From Different Mothers?" 5/8/2013).

This is the second "commentary" from Mr. Hart I'd like to address. This "hilarious" observation proves he is indeed a Moderate because he attacks both a Fox Nooz pundit as well as an MSNBC pundit, right? If I were able to express my thoughts on Mr. Hart's blog (which I cannot since he banned me) I would tell him that his "twin sons from different mothers" theory is about as sound as his theories regarding global climate change. I would further inform him that Mr. Hannity and Ms. Maddow are NOT related, and that twins MUST be birthed by the same mother.

The "joke" here, if you did not catch it, is that the blogger who does not take prisoners referred to Rachel Maddow as a "son". We all know that Rachel Maddow is female, but that does not stop Conservatives as referring to her as male. This slur has to do with her having short hair, AND (it has more to do) with her being gay. In partaking in this Right-wing humor, Willis reveals AGAIN that his claims of "moderation" are almost completely fake.

And shame on Mr. Hart for the gay bashing. He didn't intend it, I'm sure (as he actually is socially liberal in his support of equal rights for the gays), but that does not change the fact that referring to Rachel as a male is something the gay-bashers do. You'd think Willis would want to distance himself from "comedy" of this variety.

Now, on to the third post from Willis which strongly (this one more-so than the proceeding two) suggests he isn't all that moderate...

Willis Hart: The total U.S. GDP - approximately $16 trillion. The total salary of the Fortune 500 CEOs - approximately $5 billion. The percentage of the U.S. economy which comprises these salaries - approximately .03%... So, does that in fact provide perspective here? To say that this is in any way a part of our economic malaise is hugely ridiculous... And I also have to ask my progressive colleagues, if it was such a trivial thing for guys like McCain to focus on pork-barrel spending at $17 billion a year, then how... is it not even more petty for folks like ya'all to focus on an amount that's even 70% less than that... AND PRIVATE MONEY? It sure as hell seems like a loser to me (Post: "A Huge But Actually Quite Miniscule Drop in the Bucket" 5/6/3013).

Of course it seems like a loser to Mr. Hart, because he worships at the alter of the wealthy. Taxing these "job creators" even just a smidge more is something the Hartster can simply not abide. Or, suggesting it is the right and proper thing to do is something he cannot abide, at least. A slight increase, so long as other spending is cut, and so long as it goes to reducing our debt - that is, in his mind, the "moderate" position - and one he would RELUCTANTLY support. Just don't "bash" the wealthy by suggesting they don't pay their fair share. That REALLY is a slander Mr. Hart can not tolerate!

As for the pork-barrel spending "folks like ya'all" focus on - I have never focused on earmarks. I am a Liberal who believes it is the appropriate roll of Congress to earmark funds for specific projects. As noted by Wikipedia, "earmarks [are not] synonymous with pork barrel... the two are not the same: what constitutes an earmark is an objective determination, while what is pork-barrel spending is subjective". Conflating the two is something Right-wingers do.

And, as noted by Wikipedia again, "directing money to particular purposes is a core constitutional function of Congress". As for Mr. Hart's "private money" (and therefore none of the government's business) argument - I say baloney. Stewardship of the economy is a primary function of the legislative and executive branches (if it were not why blame President Obama for unemployment?). Willis Hart objects because he favors the unbridled growth (and greed) of wealth concentrated in a few hands. Yet more proof that Mr. Hart is leagues away from Moderation.

In conclusion: do you agree with my assessment of Mr. Hart not being the "Moderate" he thinks he is? Is a dollop of social liberalness all it takes to be a "Moderate"? Does it not matter how much fiscal conservatism is added to the mix? You're still a moderate for [1] being in favor equality for gays and, [2] going along with raising taxes a few percentage points (but still constantly bitching and moaning about the share of the tax load that rich folks pay)? Apparently that is what Mr. Hart believes. I, on the other hand, strongly disagree. What do you think me-buck?

6/12/2015 Update: Although I intended for there to be more entries in this Willis Hart Miscellaneous series, it just so happened that I never did another. And I do not ever intend to do another. The reason for this is because I started a blog specifically to push back against the idiocy of Mr. Willis Hart. It is called Oligarchic Stooge Talk. I have published many commentaries dealing with singular posts/topics since this first (and last) "Miscellaneous" commentary (here on SWTD), but, instead of doing any more groupings-together of shorter rebuttals to Willis nonsense, I decided the OST blog was the place to handle the shorter ones. That being the case, this is the FIRST and the LAST "Miscellaneous" commentary dealing with BS from the blog of Willis Hart.

SWTD #146, wDel #21.


  1. An insane dmarks comment to the last post by Will Hart in which he conflates fascism and socialism (the post were Will Hart says CEOs being overpaid is cool)...

    dmarks: is called fascism. The ruling elites, arrogant with power, think it is OK to rob people just because they can. They look at people who work hard and earn what they do, and instead of congratulating them, these little Pol Pots think of how they can cut these people down and then steal from them for their own personal benefit (5/8/2013).

    No, progressive taxation to fund programs which help the needy and benefit society fall under the rubric of SOCIALISM. But dmarks likes to conflate fascism and socialism. Why? Because it's right-wingers like dmarks who believe in fascism (the wealthy should rule). They pretend these two words (which refer to ideologies on OPPOSITE ends of the political spectrum) mean the same thing so they can blame Liberals for all the bad "isms".

    Also, dmarks AGAIN links socialism and mass murder (with the "little Pol Pots" slur). Socialism involves HELPING people, and NOT murdering them (as I pointed out in a previous commentary).

  2. I find it amusing that Will's justification for excessive CEO salaries (a small fraction of GDP) stems from my repudiation of his comment:

    " The S&P CEOs make an an average of $10 million a year. In the larger scope of this that is a drop in the bucket." (5/5/13 10:17am comment made to his post titled Frederick Bastiat on Government Creating Jobs/Growth posted on 4/30)

    I took exception to his comment that their salaries are a drop in the bucket by pointing out that since it is such a small drop in the bucket, the 500 S&P companies could easily find twice that amount of money ($10 billion), since it is only two drops in the bucket, and apply it to workers salaries.

    I suggested that if the lowest paid workers were given a $10/hr raise, that would increase their salaries by $20,000. If they were below the poverty line before this raise, most likely they would not be after this raise.

    Such a program would affect 500,000 people.

    Only the cruelest and most insensitive person would call raising 500,000 people out of poverty as a "negligible effect".

  3. Thanks for sharing Jerry. I did not see that. You are completely right, of course. Will eagerly defends high CEO pay, but raises for workers is an outrage.

  4. Yes, CEO pay is insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but apply the same amount of money to workers' pay and the whole economic system will fail. I don't understand republican logic, and that, republican logic, is what Will is applying.


Comment moderation has temporarily been suspended. Although I may be forced to reinstate it if the trolls take advantage.