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

Giving Them What They Want

It's the way humanity is; give them what they want, and it turns out it's not what they wanted after all ~ Kelsey Sutton, author of Some Quiet Place.

Seems as though I'm in a position now that another post setting the record straight is required. This time in response to a commentary on the blog of the individual who calls himself "rAtional nAtion", as well as a comment from Mr. Nation on the blog Progressive Eruptions in which he refers to me as "pond scum".

According to Mr. Nation's blog post, I have "taken it upon [my]self to set up a spoof site named Lying Lester", but this is an inaccurate characterization of what actually happened. It first came to my attention that RN was desirous of me setting up a site that focused on him by way of the following comment thread from Willis Hart's blog...

rAtional nAtion: Just got a lovely letter from Dervo. He wants permission to do a feature article on me like he has recently done on Will and dmarks. I ignored him of course. So, I suppose he'll go back to sulking, or... playing with his willy. Dude is seriously narcissistic. (3/26/2014 AT 9:28am). Willis Hart: Les, doesn't he already have a blog that's dedicated entirely to you? I thought that he did. (3/26/2014 AT 10:41pm). rAtional nAtion: Yeah, while back. It was a bunch of BS, made lies, and the delusional stuff Dervo is so proficient at. Dude sent me another e-mail on the subject. He's seriously peeved that I'm not posting his blathering comments any longer. (3/27/2014 AT 3:40am).

Now, I had no idea WTF Mr. Nation was talking about (and still do not). Apparently he thinks I had a blog dedicated to him a while back? I'd ask him to give a link to it, but Willis Hart does not allow me to comment. Maybe he thinks I had one but deleted it? Or maybe he wanted me to set up one so desperately that he imagined that I already had? That was my guess, in any case. Although that email (which wasn't actually an email, but a comment submitted to his blog) was me telling him I wasn't going to do it (set up a blog about him). I flatly said NO.

But then I reconsidered. I thought, if he really wants me to set up a blog that focuses on him, maybe I should just give him want he wants. I mean, it might be good for a laugh or two. And, seeing as he banned me from further comment on his blog, I said... what the hell, and went ahead and did it.

As for it being a spoof blog, I remembered that the blogger Shaw Kenawe said "parody can be very funny when handled by someone with a sharp wit and intelligence", so I decided to try that. But my parody attempt of RNUSA appears to have fallen far short of qualifying as possibly being described as being written by one someone with those qualities. Which is OK, as I am not narcissistic. Seriously.

Now, I don't think one should be criticized for trying, but apparently humor wasn't my goal. The "real reason" is that "the object of the parody drives [me] mad, and it is the only way [I] have to retaliate". Or maybe it's the "real reason" when the person doing the assessing believes your parody attempt fails to be either witty or intelligent?

No matter, as this blog will likely whither and die sooner than later, despite Mr. Nation's hunger that I be "quite active" in posting to it. But I seriously doubt that will be the case. Remember that I initially had no intention of setting up a blog for Mr. Nation at all. It was only after he cajoled me into it that I reluctantly decided to give him what he wanted.

And he jumps on that with a post on his own blog in which he clearly was attempting to solicit negative comments about me. On his own blog and on Progressive Eruptions. At worst I guess you could say that I fell for Mr. Nation's trap. I never asked "permission" to do a "feature article" on him. I actually told him I didn't wasn't interested... but he lies about me asking "permission" and (at first) saying I'd already done it.

Now he's acting all mad and posting angry comments on multiple blogs about how I'm "pond scum". And sending me emails as well, each one "sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone". Although I should note that it has only been 2 so far... it isn't as if he's flooding my inbox with messages (although I'd just block him if he did). Anyway, I guess this points to him being genuinely mad.

Not just mad, but virtually boiling over with pure rage. Which is strange, given that he practically begged that I set up the blog in the first place, and then enthusiastically endorsed it with a post on RNUSA in an attempt to drive traffic to it. However, I now suspect his post was tongue-in-cheek and that the real purpose of it was not to praise the parody blog, but to elicit negative comments about me, as well as turn other Progressive bloggers against me.

And now, at this point in the commentary, I see that is exactly what has happened. Everything up to this point was written yesterday (April 3rd)... and now (on April 4th) the blogger Octo came to the defense of his buddy RN and demanded that the Lying Lester site be closed... and so it shall be.

Seems that Octo and RN have now joined up in a public shaming exercise. Serves me right for thinking I could get away with talking back to Octo, I suppose.

So... sorry about that. It won't happen again. If Octo has a problem with me in the future all he has to do is let me know and I'll try my best to do whatever Octo wants. Although Octo will probably never read this, as, in addition to the public shaming, I may also now be shunned by who-knows-how-many members of the Progressive blogosphere.

Finally... Shaw Kenawe wrote about Internet trolls: Sadists and psychopaths and apparently Octo is trying to shoehorn me into the "troll" category when he implies I'm someone who takes "sadistic pleasure in taunting other people"... but actually, no, that is not me.

It's the "oh, but he started it first" that explains my actions. That and I thought it was funny and that RN agreed. And when I found out he was mad... well, I surely was not inclined to try to please someone calling me "pond scum". Not that any of that is any kind of excuse, mind you. Because when one person ridicules, demeans and takes continual pot shots at someone... it is only if the object of the derision responds that anyone can be accused of doing anything wrong. Live and learn.

Update 7/17/2015: I ended up NOT closing "Lying Lester", although I recently switched it from spoofing RNUSA to spoofing another blog. Although the spoofing of RNUSA continued for quite awhile after this commentary in which I said I was quitting because Octo insisted (until 6/14/2015).

SWTD #246, lDel #17.

On Juan Williams Defending Condi Rice Re Rutgers U Profs Opposed to Her Being Invited To Speak There

Michelle Obama, you know, she's got this Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress thing going. If she starts talking... her instinct is to start with this blame America, you know, I'm the victim. If that stuff starts coming out, people will go bananas and she'll go from being the new Jackie O to being something of an albatross ~ Juan Williams (dob 7/6/1946) in a 1/26/2009 comment to Bill O'Reilly while appearing on the O'Reilly Factor.

H/T to Lester Nation of rAtional nAtion United States of America for his highlighting of Juan William's defense of the ex Secretary of State regarding her invitation to speak (and receive an honory degree from) Rutgers U, and some professors with a "political agenda" speaking against it.

Juan Williams, who Mr. Nation describes as a "a rational and reasonable liberal", cites Condi's credentials (including a PhD, college teaching, provosting at Stanford U, and working her way up from a working-class family in the segregated South) and concludes that "only partisan hatred can blind the faculty to her extraordinary level of accomplishment for herself and her country".

rAtional strongly agreed, and several Liberally inclined commenters also weighed in and said they said Condi should be allowed to speak. I attempted to submit two comments citing Rice's involvement with an administration that mislead the American people into a war based on cherry-picked faulty intelligence and outright lies, but rAtional was having none of it. No doubt because bringing up such things would fall into the category of "gnawing on old bones".

"Gnawing on old bones" is a phrase rAtional likes to use when anyone brings up crimes or misdeeds of Republicans. This makes rAtional uncomfortable so he dismisses such talk by implying there is a problem with the person who brings up these things. The point being that I agree with the faculty's objections and (if I worked there) would sign their petition (my Liberal colleague's disagreement not withstanding).

It isn't "partisan hatred" to be concerned about misdeeds and lies of prior presidential administrations. That such things are swept under the rug explains why current and future administrations will continue to push the envelope. The Obama administration continued the policies of spying on the American people that began under bush (rAtional professes to be opposed). And the drone strikes in a country we aren't at war with (Pakistan and elsewhere) have only increased (but two examples).

I think "gnawing on old bones" is a phrase rAtional uses to express his opinion that the idea that we could learn from past misdeeds or "mistakes" (and not repeat them) is BAD. So, we disagree on that, as well as the belief that Juan Williams is a "a rational and reasonable liberal".

This time Mr. Williams defends Condoleezza Rice. Previously Juan defended Clarence Thomas when Thomas was accused of sexual harassment. If Williams were a Conservative defending Black Liberals, I think other Conservatives might say he was doing so only because they're Black. I won't say that because I can't think of an example where Williams has defended a Black Liberal. He seems to have a habit of exclusively defending Conservatives.

And remember he was fired by NPR for Islamophobic comments on Bill O'Reilly's "Factor", and then hired by Fox. Because he played to the Islamophobia of their base, IMO. Frankly I question whether Williams is either rational or reasonable. And I have questions regarding how Liberal he really is. Williams agreed with the Rutgers Profs that Rice had a role "in pushing the false claim of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" and supported "using enhanced interrogation techniques to get information from terror suspects", but says she should still be allowed to speak.

Allowed to speak, in Juan's opinion because "all of that is [not] negated by her service in President George W. Bush's administration". No, Condi's accomplishments aren't "negated". We simply should not ignore her participation in the lying-into-war and supporting of war crimes, Juan! "Rational" my ass.

The article by Williams is under a header (on the Fox site) that asks "why do liberals have so much hate Black Conservatives"... even though the text of Williams' article does not mention this "hate". The "hate" is brought up by Sean Hannity in a video (at the top of the article).

According to one protesting prof interviewed by Fox Nooz, it's not about Republican and Democrat. Said prof says "I have good Republican friends who are members of the Tea Party. That's not the issue. For me it's the morality of what was done during the war".

Rudolph Bell, a history professor who signed on to the petition, agreed (who knows why) to be interviewed by Sean Hannity says he is concerned about the choice of Condi to give the commencement speech in regards to her role in misleading the American people concerning WMD Iraq didn't have, as well as her support for EITs (i.e. torture).

Some excerpts from the Hannity program...

Hannity: Did Barack Obama mislead the American people when he said if you like your [insurance] plan you can your plan? Rudolph Bell: She's absolutely welcome to come. I think $35,000 would be a little high. We normally pay at the most $2,000. Anyway, on academic freedom grounds I would never protest her coming to Rutgers. As a commencement speaker, that is different. That is a faculty governance issue. I'm not trying to silence her. She is entirely welcome to come as anything other than a commencement speaker.

Sounds very reasonable to me, and not "partisan hate", hatred for Black Conservatives or "Liberal lunacy". Allow her to speak, just not in a commencement capacity. That way people who want to listen can attend and those who don't can skip it. This way, people who wish to protest can do so by not attending and not have to miss their commencement. Also, we can avoid an "ugly" scene of people turning their backs on her (as has happened previously). Not that I'd be against that form of protest, but I'd have thought the University might want to avoid that. And I surely would not be OK with giving her 35k either.

As for Hannity claiming that Obama mislead the American people about keeping their insurance policies if they like them... that is a false claim. The ACA contains a provision that grandfathers in plans that do not meet the ACA minimum requirements.

Grandfathered health plans do not have to meet all of the law's new coverage requirements. But in order to be grandfathered, health plans must have existed on March 23, 2010. Those with individual grandfathered plans had to have them before the law took effect. And to maintain their grandfathered status, the plans must not be changed to cut benefits or significantly raise prices for consumers through deductibles or co-pays. (Source).

The insurance companies changed plans to cut benefits or significantly raise prices for consumers and therefore those plans did not maintain their grandfathered status. Obama told the truth. It was the insurers who (in my estimation) changed the plans ON PURPOSE so they couldn't be grandfathered in (so they could try to trick people into paying more) while blaming Obama.

But that is another topic entirely. I only wanted to address it because Hannity lied about misrepresenting - misrepresenting that, it should be noted (even if you think Obama misrepresented) - is not comparable. Telling people they can keep crap insurance plans (plans that do not meet minimum requirements) when some didn't meet the grandfather requirements is NOT the same as lying about WMD in order to hoodwink the public into supporting an illegal war!

In conclusion I must say that Juan Williams is a poor "Liberal" for attempting to give Condi a pass (even given her impressive resume prior to lying to the American people). Also, when the rAtional dude said "I would be most interested in hearing what my more liberal leaning readership has to say about the New Brunswick Faculty Council of Rutgers University request to nix the invitation" he lied. I submitted 3 comments (2 critical of Condi and one of Juan) and rAtional declined to publish either.

Video Description: Proof Condi Rice lied about WMD Iraq destroyed.

SWTD #238, lDel #16.

Irrational Goose-Stepping By Libertarian Hypocrite Appreciated By His Masters

Sorry, libertarians: You're still hypocrites ~ RJ Eskow of AlterNet, in an open letter to those who responded (with great vitriol) to his guide to exposing the lies of free market radicals.

It appears the nation of scandals has yet another scandal to add to its long list of scandals. While this time it is a scandal occurring on a little read blog that surely will not be machining it's way all the way to national notice. It is nonetheless a scandal I feel it is worth my time mentioning on my own (even lesser read) blog.

This time the scandalous party is none other than a Libertarian Progressive-basher (ironically?) known as rAtional nAtion. It seems this Nation fellow wishes to exact a pound of flesh from a movement the paranoid irrationally fears had the audacity of having nothing to do with an actress deciding to resign from an acting gig after endorsing a Tea Party candidate for California Governor.

A summary/excerpt from the story that offended the sensibilities of Mr. Nation as follows...

Fox 44 Celebrity News: A San Francisco arts organization has parted ways with a well-known Latina actress, who was to star in its rendition of "The Vagina Monologues", after the thespian appeared in a political ad with a California Tea Party lawmaker who is running for governor [Tim Donnelly]. "We really can’t have her in the show, unfortunately", Eliana Lopez, the producer, told KPIX 5 of Maria Conchita Alonso's resignation on Friday from the cast of Brava! For Women in the Arts' upcoming Spanish performance of the Eve Ensler play. "Of course she has the right to say whatever she wants. But we're in the middle of the Mission. Doing what she is doing is against what we believe". (Fox News.com 1/19/2014).

So, what we have here is a post by Mr. Nation in which he blames the ENTIRE "liberal progressive left" for an incident in which a Conservative lost their job due to voicing political views (supporting a Tea Party candidate). Blogger Shaw Kenawe was the first to respond, and what she pointed out was that, in his post, Nation is "painting with a broad brush". Nation disagreed and instructed Shaw to "read carefully". Then he said he stood by what he wrote.

Well, I read carefully, and labeling this as story as "the open hypocrisy of the liberal progressive left" can NOT be described as anything other than painting with a broad brush. So I submitted a comment saying that I agreed with Shaw.

In response the defensive Mr. Nation posted the following bullshit comment...

rAtional nAtion: What that conclusively proves is the partisanship you share. Carry on, your lockstep (or is it goosestep) is appreciated by your masters. (1/19/2014 AT 8:16pm).

An attack belittling me while praising himself (Nation is above "goose-stepping", being more highly evolved than the rest of us partisans) is no big surprise. But my reply to Nation's bullshit obviously didn't fit his narrative, and therefore Nation could not publish (which he did not). What I said in this unpublishable comment is as follows...

Dervish Sanders: Here is some Goose-stepping for you RN... I don't believe anyone should be fired (or forced to resign) from a job for their political views. But RN's masters might appreciate that his sowing of discord and hatred for the "liberal progressive left" with his blaming of the ENTIRE Left for something a small group is responsible for. [Note: this is not the actual comment I submitted but only what I remember submitting... as I didn't save it. It is close, however].

I suppose I can see why Nation did not publish, as the comment is tinged with a little hostility. But, given that the guy can not seem to ever respond to a comment by me without condescending and insulting (while at the same time praising himself), I don't know why he should expect sweetness and niceness from me. He does the same to me on my own blog, and I don't take it personally. I don't like it, but do still publish (most of) his comments.

Although I do not believe the primary (or only) reason Nation did not publish my comment was because he was offended. More importantly, what I said did not fit his narrative, which is that the ENTIRE Left is comprised of hypocrites who would cry foul if someone spoke their mind and voiced their political opinions... and those opinions were Progressive in nature; but that they would NOT do the same if the person speaking his or her mind was a Conservative or Libertarian... or Tea Partier.

And I am sure that Nation's "masters" are appreciative that dupes such as himself are eagerly buying into and spreading his message of the "hypocritical Left".

On the other hand, another commenter made a contrary point that I found some agreement with...

Jersey McJones: Alonso's another anti-Castro Republican Cuban, and this Donnelly guy is just another pandering scumbag of the lowest order. Support a pandering scumbag and don't be surprised if people call you out on it. I wouldn't book her either. Let her go perform for the tasteless, humorless, witless cons. (1/20/2014 AT 12:23am).

My agreement has to do with the fact that ex-Minuteman and gun nut Donnelly is an individual who demonizes undocumented workers because it plays with the racists in the Tea Party. But this is the kind of racism that does not play with the Hispanic community, the target audience of the play Maria Conchita Alonso was to participate in. And, due to her endorsement of Donnelly, those bankrolling the play faced loses if the Hispanic community boycotted it.

Alonso was the one who decided to give the political endorsement, so why should the play's financial backers lose their shirts if the play was boycotted? Surely a consumer has the right to refuse to attend an entertainment event if they strongly disagree with an endorsement one of the entertainers has made.

Eliana Lopez, the producer of the play did say that "of course she has the right to say whatever she wants", but then she also said "We really can't have her in the show, unfortunately". The right thing to do would have probably to make a statement letting people know that the play has nothing to do with politics and that Ms. Alonso has the right to speak her mind on political issues just like anyone else... but that may have ended up costing them.

Think about this, if you will... an employee saying something objectionable that might cause a loss of money for the employer... is that situation in which a Conservative would say the employer (as well as the other employees) should suffer the consequences of their employee's words? For some reason I think not.

Also, is it not possible that Ms. Alonso resigned for that reason (so as to not hurt the other actors she would have co-starred with). The story does not say she was forced to resign, only that she did. I'm guessing she realized that, by staying in the play she would be doing a disservice to her co-stars. If that is the case there certainly is no "scandal", as Nation implies. Not really that much of one even if she was strongly "encouraged" to get lost, as pissing off the play's target audience wasn't a very smart thing for her to do (and RIGHTLY not appreciated by her employer).

My conclusion? This isn't a "scandal", and those backing the play were within their rights to ask that Alonso leave (if they did). Also, what happened is definitely not indicative of the "open hypocrisy of the liberal progressive left", although, as I already said, I'm sure Nation's "masters" are appreciative of this type of discord sowing. Some "offended" Donnelly supporters might even decide to throw a few bucks his way that they may have otherwise not.

SWTD #227, lDel #14.

On The Utter Ridiculousness Of A Libertarian Citing A Socialist Country As Proof That His Economic Theories Unequivocally Equal Success

If we put our trust in the common sense of common men and "with malice toward none and charity for all" go forward on the great adventure of making political, economic and social democracy a practical reality, we shall not fail ~ Henry A. Wallace (10/7/1888 to 11/18/1965) the 33rd Vice President of the United States (1941–1945). In the 1948 presidential election, Wallace was the nominee of the Progressive Party. His platform included an end to segregation, full voting rights for blacks, and universal government health insurance.

What does the Socialist Democracy of Sweden prove as far as Libertarian economics goes? According to a recent blog post by the Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart, Sweden shows Libertarian economics rule and Socialism stinks. Argument as follows...

Willis Hart: In the early 1960s, total government spending in Sweden was approximately 30% of GDP and Sweden was the 4th wealthiest country in the world. By the early 1990s, government spending had literally doubled to 60% of GDP and Sweden fell all the way to 17th in terms of wealth. Yes, the Swedes eventually scaled back on some of this spending and they also cut back significantly on regulations (two factors that greatly helped their economy) but how anybody out there can still say that what they did in the '70s and '80s was good for the economy is well beyond me. (The Massive Cost of a Bloated Welfare State, 1/7/2014 AT 7:42pm).

What is beyond me is that a Libertarian would cite Sweden as proof that the economic theories they subscribe to equal success while Socialism equals failure. The government spending of Sweden (as a percentage of GDP) is STILL 52 percent (as of 2011), according to the Investopedia article Countries With The Highest Government Spending To GDP Ratio. The same article reports that in the United States "total government expenditures as percentage of GDP totaled 35% in fiscal 2010. This includes both Federal and State spending and off budget items as well".

Now, it appears as though Mr. Hart could be correct in that very high levels of government spending in Sweden did not leave room for the private sector to grow. However, while Willis puts forward the argument that Progressives make the "assertion that austerity invariably leads to a bad economy", that is a strawman (Progressive make no such assertion).

Keynesian economics does NOT say government spending should ALWAYS be increased in times of economic downturn, even if it is already high. Private sector spending is always preferable to government spending, and a government that monopolized it's country's economy would KILL the private sector. Sweden decreased government spending, allowing it's private sector to expand, and that helped it recover from an economic downturn.

Comparing Sweden (with it's high government spending) to the US (with it's much lower spending) and saying because Sweden didn't destroy it's private sector in response to an economic downturn... that this disproves Keynesianism? Utterly ridiculous. The downturn, BTW, was caused by the kind of liberalization Willis advocates, as noted by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)...

NBER, in a 2010 paper "Reforming the Welfare State: Recovery and Beyond in Sweden": The immediate causes for Sweden's early 1990s crisis are similar to those that set off America's late 2008 crisis: the deregulation of financial markets and excessive credit expansion fueled a real estate bubble that burst, causing a contraction of economic activity that spread from the banking sector to the economy as a whole.

In response to this downturn Sweden increased government spending to "above 70 percent of national income". So, While it is true that Sweden eventually cut spending and loosened some regulations... and afterward their economic situation improved (as Willis notes), Sweden remains one of THE MOST Socialist countries on the planet with levels of government spending (as a percentage of GDP) that far exceeds spending by our government.

Furthermore, as concluded by the NBER report cited above, Sweden pragmatically dealt with "policy blunders"... i.e. Libertarian/Conservative deregulation and not their "bloated welfare state" (although it was a factor that government spending held back private sector growth). But the sparking of the downturn can be directly attributed to liberalization and deregulation and NOT Socialism.

One of the accomplishments of the Socialist approach of the Swedish government that is "beyond" the Hartster, as reported by NBER, is as follows...

NBER: Much of what American outsiders saw in Sweden puzzled them. They found it remarkable that Sweden had eliminated poverty through interventions in markets without running into serious economic problems before the crisis.

The bottom line is that the Liberalization advocated by the likes of Mr. Hart often causes bubbles followed by bubble burstings, recessions, and always increases inequality and deepens poverty. On the other hand, the right balance of Socialism and Liberalization with the addition of smart regulations and government interventions leads to economic stability and greater equality... or an economy that benefits everyone, not just the plutocrats. Some may find that "puzzling", but they're the ones who believe economic success starts at the top, and so we must take care of the wealthy and the business community first (by subsidizing their labor expenses, for example).

So, Sweden a case study that proves Libertarian economics? I say "hell no". Citing as an example the socialist democracy of Sweden (with it's government spending as a percentage of GDP FAR above that of the US even after they scaled back a bit) as proof that Liberalization is the key to economic success and that a "bloated welfare state" leads to economic ruin is, IMO, a TOTAL strawman. The Swedish government had to "bloat" it's spending DRAMATICALLY before it choked off private sector growth. They reduced it somewhat following a downturn caused by TOO MUCH deregulation and the economy improved. The lesson we should learn from the example of Sweden is that Social Democracy and a mixed economy (as advocated by Progressives) yields the best results.

Postscript: The quote at the top of my blog posting, is, I believe an excellent response to the comment by fellow Libertarian blogger rAtional nAtion (left in response to Willis' commentary), which is...

rAtional nAtion: In democratic socialist nations the rulers still have to be elected. Do I see America trotting further into democratic socialism? You can bet I do. (1/7/2014 AT 8:00pm).

I seriously hope you are right Mr. nAtion, although I think we're quite a way away from putting "our trust in the common sense of common men" given the fact that one of the major political parties (and one minor one; i.e. Libertarians) are putting their trust in the self interest of the wealthy elites and believing THAT is what will save us ("rational self interest", greed as a virtue and all the similar hogwash that the rAtional oNe and Willis Hart subscribe to).

SWTD #223, wDel #44.

Conservatives Pro-Mooching When Tax Payer Handouts Go To Business Community

...many full-time workers qualify for food stamps or other government assistance. If the minimum wage were raised to a "living wage" we, the taxpayers, would not have to subsidize these corporations with government handouts. Yes, if wages were raised prices would go up to cover the employers' added costs. But isn't that really a reflection of the capitalistic system? ~ Excerpt from the article Minimum Wage Vs. Corporate Welfare by Jim Kinninger, RGJ.com 12/11/2013).

Conservative often complain about the "welfare state", arguing that we need to stop "subsidizing" poverty... but when it comes to welfare for the business community, it seems they completely FAIL to understand how labor should be priced. Libertarian blogger Rational Nation put forward the boiler plate argument against raising the minimum wage in a recent blog posting...

rAtional nAtion: Labor unions, now clamoring for a ridiculously high minimum wage see no correlation between the effect of increased costs to the businesses and the effect it will have on the price of product or service to the consumer. (1/4/2014 AT 6:57pm).

Not so, Mr. nAtion. I would say the problem is that business is clamoring for ridiculously lower wages and they see no correlation between the amount of money it takes a worker to live and the cost of their labor. If we were talking about a machine that needed a certain level of maintenance to function (and it was the only machine suited for the job... or other machines all needed the same level of maintenance), business would have no choice but to pay what the maintenance cost. Similarly, human workers require a minimum wage in order to provide the basic necessities of life. But with human workers business does not want to pay.

Sorry, but if you NEED workers you HAVE to pay what it costs to "maintain" them. If not the taxpayers will have to make up the difference in the form of welfare. The argument the rAtional oNe presents is one for corporate mooching. Nobody would suggest that taxpayers should foot the bill for the maintenance of machines owned by private businesses, so why the hell do Conservatives believe taxpayers should foot the bill when business won't pay to "maintain" their workers?

As for the effect paying a minimum wage would have on the price of product or service to the consumer... the effect will be that the price of the product or service will reflect REAL COST (plus a reasonable profit), and not a price subsidized by the taxpayer. And raising prices, as Conservatives always argue will most certainly be the result of a minimum wage hike, will NOT necessarily be the result (as stated by the author of the quote at the top of my article, with whom I disagree slightly... on this point).

First of all, it is the market that sets prices (or it plays a large role, at least). Charge more than people can afford, and your product won't sell or people won't pay for your service. But business has many other options they can consider before raising prices (which they may not even be able to do)... like paying management less, for example.

Surely in this era of record profits, that is an option that the big boys can consider. But, what about small business, the Conservative will ask? A higher minimum wage will drive them out of business, for sure (the Conservative will argue). But they (intentionally) fail to realize that the big employers (when the minimum wage is inapplicable) set the wage in any given industry. The big employers refuse to pay a decent wage, and the small businesses can't offer any more (or they will be unable to compete).

But, if the larger employers must pay more (a reasonable minimum wage that reflects the true cost of labor exists), then smaller employers can pay more as well and still be able to compete. The bottom line here is, that when the supply of labor is high (more people looking for employment than jobs exist) then the cost of labor will always drop to a sustenance level... or lower, when Conservatives enable business that want to mooch off the taxpayers by arguing against paying a minimum wage. Time to end the mooching, I say. Business should pay the true cost of their labor and STOP looking to the taxpayers to subsidize their costs.

7/4/2015 Update: During a 6/20/2015 discussion re WalMart on the blog rAtional nAtion uSA, the proprietor seemed to come out in favor of paying a minimum wage that is a living wage. Specifically RN said "the minimum annual wage is in any geographical area to keep an adult just above the poverty level. That it seems would constitute a living wage. What is necessary not all that is desired. That ought to be the standard for a minimum wage in each geographical area. At least in a society that understands Thomas Paine and the concept of general welfare". Then, when Jerry Critter said (in this same discussion) that "higher taxes may mean lower profits", RN agreed! Paying a higher minimum wage may also mean lower profits (and not increased prices for the consumer). Is this a reversal of the RN position as referred to above and thus a (lessening, at least) of the prior RN delusion? Was it RN who "sharpened his pencil"?

SWTD #222, lDel #13.

How Much Will Rachel Jeantel's 15 Minutes Continuing Irk The Haters? (Plus Tea Party Racism & Zimmerman Arrested Again)

Haters never win. I just think that's true about life, because negative energy always costs in the end ~ Thomas William (dob 2/9/1981) an English actor who played the character of Loki in the Marvel Studios films Thor (2011), The Avengers (2012), and Thor: The Dark World (2013).

This post consists of three related topics/questions, as follows... [1] Rachel Jeantel's "15 minutes of fame" continues with an Ebony article and photo shoot. How much will this irk the haters? [2] Is someone who agrees with those who say the Tea Party has a problem with racism sticking to a generic Leftist template? and [3] The killer George Zimmerman was arrested for threatening his current girlfriend with a gun. Is this guy eventually going to end up in prison for an extended period of time?

[1] Rachel Jeantel Dec/2013 Ebony Photo Shoot & My Subscription To Said Publication... Just How Much Will This Irk The Haters?

I just received the December 2013 issue of Ebony in the mail, paged though it, and found an article in the "Style/Makeover" section titled "Rachel Jeantel: New Year, New Look". This is the 7th issue of Ebony I have received, despite never subscribing to it. Honestly I have no idea why they're sending me this publication. I got a bill awhile ago, but it said that if I wanted to continue receiving Ebony I should submit payment. I figured the magazines I had received thus far were a trial subscription that Ebony had decided (for a reason unknown to me) to send me the mag for free to get me hooked.

I did not return the bill with my payment info and inform them I wanted to keep getting Ebony. I threw it away and assumed no more magazines would be sent. But still they come. And I've been reading them (most of the articles) and not disliking it... not liking it enough to subscribe, but it's an OK read for free. I also received two issues of some snowboarding magazine that I never told anyone I wanted. That magazine I paged though and looked at the pictures (and nothing else), as I have zero interest in snowboarding.

Although I do know why I got that one. I got an email from Publisher's Clearinghouse and entered their sweepstakes (a number of times)... but NEVER ordered anything. Yet they THINK I ordered the snowboarding magazine when I know I did not (not even by mistake). I emailed them when they sent me a bill and said "I did not order this and am not paying". No response. I called them when the second issue arrived and found out they had received my email and my subscription was cancelled (and I owed nothing).

I haven't contacted Ebony because the bill they sent me said I should pay if I wanted to CONTINUE my subscription. They've never said I owed them anything for the issues I've already received. If they want to send me the magazine for free that's OK with me... which is definitely NOT the case with the snowboarding mag, which I don't want, even for free. In any case, back to the Rachel Jeantel article... it is not that long and mostly concerns the "makeover". I say she looks good (see picture below). And I also say, that, although her "fame" (however long it lasts) came from a tragic incident (the murder of her friend)... still, I say "good for her". And I decided to share these feeling on my blog because I figured it is something that would irk the haters (at a minimum).

Rachel Jeantel says (in the article) that she did not seek fame. Of course not. She was there (court) to "help out a friend". Yes, she did not want to get involved at first, but that was only when she thought the police didn't need her testimony (and she did not want to get involved if she didn't have to). I say this is completely understandable, given the "media backlash" (mentioned in the article) and the racist hate it attracted from the Right (I know because many of the racist haters commented on my blog when I wrote about the murder of Trayvon Martin).

This Ebony article makes me smile when I think of something positive coming Miss Jeantel's way; after all the hatred and racism directed at her from the Right (even if it in no way makes up for the loss of Trayvon Martin, or for his killer getting away with murder). Still, it is a small victory against all the haters. My hope is that Rachel rides this train as long as she is able, and that it (her fame, even if it does not last) assists her in attaining much future success.

Let me know if you agree, or if you're a hater who disagrees (I'll publish your comment but likely ridicule it... so, if that is OK with you - hate away). BTW, I wasn't suggesting (with the underlined header that my subscription to Ebony would irk anyone, only the fact that Rachel Jeantel appeared in the magazine).

[2] Can My Pointing Out The Fact That The Tea Party Has A Racism Problem Be Described As Me Following A Leftist "Template"?

This is the racism from the Right (mostly concerning our first Black president) that, if you mention it to anyone who isn't a Lefty, is met with skepticism. I recently noted my agreement with a public figure who said the Tea Party contained racist elements, to which the Libertarian-voting Objectivist/Ayn Rand enthusiast rAtional nAtion replied by saying "As w-d sticks with the generic template".

The "generic template", according to the rAtional fEllow (if my deciphering of his comments is accurate) is that I call the Tea Party racist while ignoring the racism in the Democratic Party. Wrong-o, Mr nAtion. There are racists who identify with all political parties, it's just that the racism in the Tea Party is provably worse. And those Conservatives who disagree with it ignore and deny it, while at the same time using it to their advantage. They ignore/deny it even if they don't agree with it because any attack on Obama is good (in their minds). It gets the racists out to vote... the racist Republicans and Tea Partiers, that is.

So... in regards to the "generic template"... am I quilty of adhering to one as the rAtional oNe charges? Do the the haters of Rachel Jeantel include many Tea Partiers? While I am sure many Conservatives hate her, regardless of whether or not they identify with the Tea Party, is she hated more by Tea Party folks? These are two additional questions you may consider answering if you choose to reply to this post.

[3] George Zimmerman's History Of Domestic Abuse & Problems With Guns Meet, Again

George Zimmerman's first girlfriend (and at-the-time fiance) filed a restraining order against him predicated on a charge of domestic violence (in July of 2005). Although whenever anyone brings this up (in print or on the TV) they also mention that Zimmerman filed a reciprocal restraining order... implying that this was just a "he said, she said" case in which they were both accusing each other and therefore either could be lying (or they could both be guilty of violence against the other).

Then, following Zimmerman's acquittal in regards to the charges against him for killing Trayvon Martin, his (now ex) wife Shellie called 911 (Sept 2013) and said George had his hand on his gun and was threatening to shoot her and/or her father. She also accused him of punching her father in the nose and smashing her iPod. Afterwards she declined to press charges, although she did divorce him.

Now Zimmerman has a new girlfriend and THAT girlfriend has made similar accusations. Below I have transcribed a portion of the 11/18/2013 airing of Politics Nation hosted by Al Sharton. Why an excerpt instead of just telling you what happened in my own words? Because it will irk the haters...

Al Sharpton: Breaking news tonight, George Zimmerman arrested in Florida. At this hour Zimmerman is behind bars [picture of a bearded Zimmerman displayed on screen]... after an incident involving his girlfriend. Charged with felony aggravated assault with a weapon, domestic battery violence and criminal mischief. (excerpt from the MSNBC program "Politics Nation").

Now, according to Zimmerman (in a 911 call) he says his girlfriend went crazy on him. Zimmerman's version of events (as told to a 911 operator) is that his girlfriend - who is "pregnant with our child" - got violent after she told him to get out and he agreed to do so. Zimmerman says she started yelling and breaking her own stuff. Or his stuff. He wasn't sure. His girlfriend says Zimmerman stuck his gun in her face, but in regards to that Zimmerman says his GF has a gun and his gun is locked up. (see here for the audio of the 911 call).

In regards to this I say Zimmerman is a liar. Also, I must ask WHY would any sane female agree to shack up with this person? He has a history of abusing women and threatening them with guns. What is wrong with these women? And how the hell did Zimmerman get a GF, move in with her, and knock her up in less than 2 months time?

The question I'm going to request any reader of this commentary respond to is... will this idiot (the current GF) press charges, or will she decline to do so (like Shellie)? Also, will Zimmerman be convicted and serve some jail time (as he clearly needs to) or will this be another "he said, she said" situation where Zimmerman defends himself by lying (as he obviously did when he told "his side" of what happened the night he murdered Trayvon Martin)? And, finally, will yet another woman shack up with Zimmerman and eventually file domestic abuse charges... and in how short of a time period will that come to pass?

For the record, I know George was acquitted in the show trial, but I shall continue to say he murdered Trayvon, as that is what I believe happened. Technically he was found "not guilty", but in my mind he is a murderer.

Image Description: Rachel Jeantel post-makeover in the December 2013 issue of Ebony magazine.

Video Description: Racism Still Motivates Tea Party. In this Ring of Fire video, host Mike Papantonio & Chauncey DeVega discuss racism within the Tea Party and how the word "cracker" is NOT comparible to the N-word, 8/9/2013 (9:33).

SWTD #220, lDel #12.

Clueless Ayn Rand Worshiping Objectivist Concerned About Wealth Inequality Doesn't Realize His Ideology Fosters It

Oh, for an honest Libertarian who would say "Yes, in Libertopia we'd have rampant quackery, organ-seizure, baby-selling, slavery in all but name - BUT THAT'S FREEDOM! ~ Seth Finkelstein, programmer and author who writes for The Guardian.

The video at the bottom of this commentary was recently included in a post about wealth inequality in the United States on the ironically titled blog "rAtional nAtion uSA". The proprietor of this blog, Lester Nation, is an individual who believes in the greed rationalizing ideology of Ayn Rand. Given that, his including of this video in his post proves just how clueless this guy is when it comes to the end game the plutocrats who endorse Libertarianism (like the Koch Brothers) desire.

The endgame of the plutocrats; the entire goal of pushing Libertarianism and Randism on our nation is to further enrich themselves and impoverish everyone else. This is a zero-sum game and when the rich get richer we all get poorer. It doesn't have to be, but the way Libertarians play the game it is. If they were willing to pay their workers more those workers would spend that money into the economy, thus increasing demand and benefiting the "job creators". Instead they seek to pay the workers as little as possible, thus decreasing demand.

Libertarians say economics isn't a zero-sum game, but that is only true when the economy is growing. The economy only grows when the workers have money to spend; which generates demand; which grows the economy. Problem is, when the corportist and CEO class seeks to increase their wealth by paying workers less and less, this causes the economy to contract (workers have less money to spend) and then the game is zero sum (the workers can't spend unless they borrow against the equity in their home, use their credit cards, or otherwise go into debt). For the plutocrats to win the workers must lose, which they have been over the past 40 years, ever since this country adopted Reaganomics (also known as "trickle down").

But Libertarians (the true believers like Lester) fail to realize this. They think that if government simply gets out of the way the wealthy elites will (unrestrained) be able to make more money and that money will trickle down to everyone else (those who work hard). This, despite the fact that the employers seek to pay as little as possible and, without government "restraining" them, they will engage in practices that drive down wages to an even greater extent... insourcing, outsourcing (using cheap overseas labor and then importing the goods sans tariffs), anti-unionism, etc.

Question is, for how long with the citizens tolerate this inequality before they demand change? And what kind of change will they demand? That really concerns Lester. He articulates these fears in a comment to his own post as follows...

rAtional nAtion: How this is going to shake out is uncertain. But my money rests on serious social unrest, a serious depression, and the results will be exactly what Capitalists have railed against for years. MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL and HIGHER TAXES. (10/22/2013 AT 4:56pm).

All I can say to that is... amen, Lester. I pray you are right, but I also pray the middle class isn't decimated before we reach a breaking point. BTW, by "more government control" Lester refers to more democracy. Libertarians hate democracy, as they foolishly believe the "free market" should rule, not "we the people". Me, I'm a Progressive who believes in democracy and believe that "more government control" equates to our elected representatives doing more of what we want. And, of course taxes aren't high enough (FactCheck.org and PolitiFact both confirm that taxes are at a historical low).

I think Lester is right, but unlike him I don't fear the results he predicts. I am not looking forward to a possible depression, but if the people wake up and demand more democracy, higher taxes and other economic policies that will rebuild the middle class I'd be on board with that 100 percent.

According to Thomas Jefferson, "those seeking profits, were they given total freedom, would not be the ones to trust to keep government pure and our rights secure". The "free market", in other words, will destroy rights in order to gain more profit... and reduce the rest of us to paupers (or vassals). A country with a large and vibrant middle class, as pointed out by Progressive talker Thom Hartmann, is not natural.

When the plutocrats rule (as the Libertarians desire) the end result is a small number of uber wealthy rulers, an equally small middle class, and a large number of working poor. "We the people" via our elected officials must create and enforce legislation and economic policies to foster and enable the existence of a middle class... this would be the government that Libertarians and Randians like Lester Nation fear and despise. These foolish individuals fail to recognize the wisdom in Jefferson's words because they have been thoroughly duped by the plutocrats.

Video Description: Video posted on the rAtional nAtion uSA blog to complement a 10/22/2013 post by the proprietor titled "The Great American Income Shift". The video points out just how much more money the wealthy have than the rest of us (and that the inequality is significantly more than most Americans think)...

Further Reading
[1] Libertarianism Makes You Stupid by Seth Finkelstein, August 1997.
[2] Garbage and Gravitas... Ayn Rand was a melodramatist of the moral life: the battle is between the producer and the moochers, and it must end in life or death by Corey Robin, The Nation 5/20/2010.

SWTD #217, lDel #11.

Libertarian Dream Of Plutocrats As The New Feudal Lords & Everyone Else Their Vassals

It has a fair claim to be the ugliest philosophy the post-war world has produced. Selfishness, it contends, is good, altruism evil, empathy and compassion are irrational and destructive. The poor deserve to die; the rich deserve unmediated power ~ George Monbiot, describing the ideology of Ayn Rand's Objectivism (an ideology that Libertriansim is derived from) as quoted in his 3/5/2013 article A Manifesto for Psychopaths. George Monbiot (dob 1/27/1963) is an English writer, known for his environmental and political activism.

Who is John Galt? an unoriginal Ayn-Rand-worshipping Objectivist Libertarian-voting individual whose blog I was recently banned from asks in one of his latest posts. John Galt was a poor oppressed rich person from whom the government wanted to steal an invention from that could benefit mankind greatly.

This invention of Mr. Galt's produced virtually unlimited amounts of free electricity. Although this Galt fellow was already a wealthy man he wanted to use his invention to grow even wealthier. The oppressive socialist government simply wanted to seize it (or that is my understanding, as I have never read Atlas Shrugged).

Mr. Galt could not believe it that the government wanted his invention to use to the benefit of all mankind. He didn't care if the poor of the world struggled and died if the wealthy elites sucked up all the wealth. Rational self-interest told him he should have it all... or at least as much as he could get, the rabble be damned.

So Galt suggested to all the other rich people that they go on strike. Now, in reality, if this actually did happen... perhaps there would be some pain initially as the world adjusted, but eventually others (non rich people) would step forward and fill the gap (the gap created by the wealthy withdrawing their money from the economy).

Worker cooperatives formed by laid-off workers (the socialist government would take the idle factories and give them to the workers instead of allowing society to collapse). The workers would do the work (as they had done before) but now they would reap the benefits of their labor. Instead of the wealthy elites siphoning off a majority of the money that came from the fruits of their labor, the workers would distribute it among themselves and spend it into the economy. Soon everyone in the lower economic classes (the middle, working and poor) would all be much richer.

Everyone would be grateful the wealthy elites went "on strike" and tell them to get lost. Seeing as they no longer wanted to be a part of America (and refused to pay their taxes, I'm guessing)... perhaps they could be deported. That would be my happy ending to Atlas Shrugged, in any case. Instead, as depicted in Ayn Rand's fantasy novel, everyone else finds they are hopelessly lost without the "productive people" and they beg John Galt and the wealthy a-holes who joined him to end their strike.

Thus the evil Socialist government is toppled. Although the tome doesn't mention who cooks and cleans for the rich "makers" while they are on strike. Apparently they find some traitors among the "takers" to sell to them (food and other essential supplies)... but how the hell does food (or other essential goods) get processed or manufactured if the rich shut down their factories because they are on "strike" and everyone is helpless without them?

The book does not say (apparently). How they can cut off their noses to spite their faces and not suffer any consequences is not addressed by Rand (as far as I know). This is why many who become interested in Rand and Objectivism as young adults most often abandon it as adults.

They wake up to the fact that the ideology is filled with huge logical holes (just like Rand's novel). One such individual is Progressive Talker Thom Hartmann. I have heard him mention a number of times on his program that he was a Conservative (due to the influence of his father) when he was very young; moved on to Libertarianism, and now calls himself a Democratic Socialist... although he says his program represents the "radical middle".

According to Mr. Hartmann Libertarianism represents a new feudalism... and regarding this perspective I am in agreement with him. Thom laid out his argument in a rant from the June 24th airing of his program... an argument I have transcribed below (with minor edits made for reasons of brevity and clarity)...

Thom Hartmann: [Caller] you have an antidote for the Ayn Rand thought virus? Caller: I think it would be good to ask these people who have been infected and they don't realize it. Do we the people have the ethical authority to regulate our economy, to determine how our natural resources are used, and to set a fair tax rate? Thom Hartmann: Not according to Libertarians. We do not have that authority. That should be in the hands of the free market. They define "liberty" as economic liberty, exclusively. You don't have the freedom to not be hungry. You're not free to not freeze to death in the winter. You shouldn't be free from the worry about going out into the workplace without a decent education. There are a whole host of freedoms that I would submit that Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson worked very hard to give us. Those are freedoms that are not recognized by Libertarians. Unless you were born wealthy like the heroes of Atlas Shrugged... your daddy having built a railroad or having been given it by Abraham Lincoln. The Commons is the place where these guys always fall apart in any kind of rational argument, although they don't realize that they're falling apart. What they argue that the Commons would be best served if it was all privatized and we tried that. It was called feudalism. The feudal lords were not the kings, they were not the political actors of their day, they were the owners. The feudal lords owned everything. They owned the roads, they owned the forests, they hired private sheriffs to make sure that anyone who shot anything in the forest had to pay a tax on it or give a piece of it to the local lord. Feudalism was all about property rights and placing them above human rights. (Excerpt from the 6/24/2013 broadcast of the Thom Hartmann Program, 11:32 to 14:00 of hour 3).

Let me add that it isn't just Libertarians that have this "entitlement mentality"; in that they feel they are entitled to the labor of the workers at as low a price as they are able to "negotiate" (i.e. force workers to accept)... Conservatives very much share this same entitlement mentality and both greed-based ideologies desire to impoverish the workers so that money can be transferred to the phony "job creators".

The difference between Libertarians and Conservatives is that Libertarians believe government should get out of the way and allow the plutocrats to rule, while Conservatives believe governmental politicos should help the plutocrats (while enriching themselves, of course). Both ideologies call for the further screwing of the workers and are attempting to achieve that goal by demonizing workers as lazy and jealous.

And both ideologies idealize and raise up for worship the wealthy leaches who profit from the labor of the workers by re-labeling them as "job creators" (when it is actually demand that comes from the consumption of the workers that creates jobs).

Both Libertarianism and Conservatism are poisonous ideologies that seek to destroy the liberty and wealth of the workers to the benefit of the plutocrats. It is time to stop blaming workers for their inability to stop the wealthy elites from taking advantage of them. What we need to do is empower workers via increased unionization (make unionization easier via legislation like card check), make the formation of worker owned cooperatives easier and by decreasing the unfair advantage gained by offshorers by increasing tariffs.

Raising taxes on the wealthy (the wealthy who have benefited greatly by underpaying the workers who created and continue to create their wealth), and redistribute that wealth. This, contrary to Conservative and Libertarian claims, would put money back in the hands of the workers who earned it (but from who it was taken), not to give "unearned handouts" to those who don't deserve them. Until we take these steps we will continue on down the road toward neofeudalism.

And we won't take these steps so long as the gullible masses buy into the propaganda and spin coming from the plutocratic class and their stooges... true believers and deluded fools (like the followers of Ayn Rand who are still repeating the question "who is John Galt"). The bottom line is that Americans need to wake up and start supporting and electing progressives and populists (one in the same, IMO) and stop buying into the self-serving wealthy-worshiping Conservative fairy tale nonsense that relies on victim-blaming and lies about the "evils" of socialism and who REALLY creates the wealth of a country (the workers). If not we will surely end up as vassals of the wealthy feudal lords (even more so than we are now).

Further Reading: Atlas Shrugged - Left Behind for Libertarians by Grey Fedora, Daily Kos 10/7/2013.

SWTD #213, lDel #10.

Lies And The Lying Lester Trolls Who Tell Them

Again, I think there are individuals who I'd like to meet in a dark alley somewhere and have some fun with them only because they are liars and cowards ~ Vince McMahon (dob 8/24/1945) the CEO and Chairman of the professional wrestling promotion World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE).

Nine days ago I authored a fictional story in which the blogger Lester Nation figured prominently. Or a fictionalized version of him. Apparently this post made Lester quite angry. Previously when I presumed he had banned me he said I was lying... lying because the game-player would publish some comments while rejecting others. He has now declared that NO comments submitted by me to his blog shall be published henceforth.

This happened immediately after I published the fictional story. And he hates being called "Lester" very much too, as he is now heavily playing up the nickname he created for me, "Canardo Sanders". So my use of that name probably contributed to the banning... but it was certainly the story that pushed him over the edge.

Now Lester is so angry that he trumpets my banning with slanderings of me on his blog, in an attempt to turn other bloggers (including Progressives) against me. After approving an obvious spoof comment (someone spoofing Shaw Kenawe), Lester said...

rAtional nAtion: Yes Shaw I certainly recognize the imposter for the infestation he or perhaps she is. Hopefully the fake will get the rather direct hint and slither away. If not it will go the same way as Canardo Sanders, Steve, Radical Redneck, the infamous Jew Baby Hater Anon, and others. To Spam or simply get deleted. (10/12/2013 AT 11:13am).

Lester (with this comment) puts me in the same category as the other trolls he names. Although I still believe that these individuals might actually be Lester trying to elicit sympathy from Progressives (which he has), or simply attempting to dupe them. But I am NOT a troll; certainly I do not fall under the definition as given by Wikipedia, which says a troll is "a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, or off-topic messages".

I have never done any of these things. I only seek honest discussion. Steve, a mentally disturbed individual that originally commented on Lester's blog but is currently focusing his attentions on me, is a clear example of a troll. And Lester himself has exhibited behavior on my blog that is incredibly trollish in nature. For example, Lying Lester said (in a previous comment on this blog) that him commenting on Sleeping with The Devil is "is a mere amusement for me, an oppurtunity to laugh and then infuriate you".

Prior to this comment Lester admitted that "I've had fun playing games with your delusional ass". This was back when I allowed anonymous commenting and Lying Lester submitted a lot of anonymous comments... and was convinced he was fooling me into thinking all his comments were a bunch of other people hating on my blog.

Now he describes me and the comments submitted to his blog as an "infestation". But Lester ADMITS to trolling on my blog (as evidenced by the comments I quote above)! Was Lester not behaving as a troll and "infesting" my blog when he submitted the above comments (as well as many other similar comments)? And let us not forget Lying Lester's use of a sock puppet he called The Sword of Truth (TSOT), an alternate identity he hide behind and used to comment on the blog of his supposed friend Shaw Kenawe.

At the time I originally called out Lester as TSOT the "evidence" I presented was my noticing that Lester misspelled "guilty" as "quilty". I gave multiple examples of the misspelling from Lying Lester and just one from TSOT. So the case could be considered circumstantial... but now (whilst looking over an old comment thread on this blog) I have found an additional clue that I think is definitive - and proves beyond any doubt that TSOT was indeed a sock puppet of Lying Lester. This clue is contained in the following comment..

The Sword of Truth: How trite your comment Anon. It does serve to keep the crap fest alive though. (8/06/2013 AT 9:01am).

I have NEVER seen anyone else BUT Lester use the term "crap fest". This is not a coincidence (as the "quilty" observation COULD have been). It has now been proven definitively that "The Sword of Truth" was a sock puppet of Lester... My deducing was accurate. But Lester made fun of my sleuthing, using the sign-off "Sir Baron von Quilty, At Your Sevice" on the blog of Shaw Kenawe, and in response Shaw said "Now THAT'S funny!". Finding out a commenter on your blog misrepresented himself and posted under an alias is funny?

Clearly if one wishes to be friends with Lester one must ignore it when he lies to you (making fun of me exposing him as TSOT was a denial and that denial was a LIE). Me, there is no f*cking way I'd be willing to ignore the lies of Lester in order to be his "friend". Seriously, I doubt Lester considers any Progressive to be his friend. I strongly suspect it gives Lester great pleasure that there are Progressives he has duped into thinking he is genuinely friendly toward them. No offense to those Progressives who think Lester is their friend... but you are being lied to. Lying Lester is laughing at you behind your back.

OK, so none of these Progressives who are being duped by Lester will read this, or will likely disbelieve me if they do. Does that mean Lester "wins"? I say no. Lester is a loser because his lies are pointless. What does he think he is accomplishing with these lies? Beats me. In any case I'm not going to "get the rather direct hint and slither away". So long as Lester continues to slander me (and attempt to sow discord) I shall continue to defend myself, especially when hypocrites like Lester print comments such as the following on their blogs...

rAtional nAtion: Examples of such infestations would be the attempt by individuals such as Canardo Sanders of Sleeping with The Devil infamy and yourself [the fake Shaw Kenawe] to divert discussions of substance and relevance towards a cesspool of BS. (10/12/2013 AT 9:41am).

This comment would be quite accurate if Lester were talking about himself, as this was a goal he tried very hard to accomplish when he came to my blog to defend himself against the accusations of Steve. These were accusations that had validity, so Lester was not able to do a good job defending himself, and ended up resorting to name-calling (as he actually made the inflammatory comments for which his detractors were criticizing him).

And, because I listened to Steve, Lester held me accountable... even though the entire situation arose because Lester made comments that certainly could be interpreted as Anti-Semitic. Now it just so happens that Steve turned out to be a raving maniac, but that does not change the fact that it was Lester who made his own bed (something the hypocrite accused me of when he banned me). And I blame him for bringing the troll Steve to my blog (I have sent approximately 80 Steve comments to the Spam folder since I banned him).

Given these facts (Lester trolling my blog and inciting the hate-filled homophobe Steve), I find the fact that Lester is now slandering me on his blog a situation that DEMANDS a response from me. I simply cannot allow the liar's slanderous misrepresentations to go unchallenged (hence this commentary).

Also, an FYI in regards to the story I mentioned at the top of my post... in it I accuse Lester of being Steve. The reason for the accusation is that 1 Lester said "Anon is Steve and perhaps wd/DS". So Lester accused me of being Steve first, and me accusing him of being Steve (when we already know he used at least two sock puppets, TSOT and Lodoc) is certainly plausible. And, 2 Steve saying (to me) "I will just call you RN from now on. Your character traits... are identical".

Yes, I'm sure that many people have made the same observation; that Lester and I are identical... not. In any case, I can now chalk up another banning... this time officially. The question now is... where can I go to get banned next? Some Conservative blog where they hate Liberals would be too easy.

SWTD #212, lDel #9.

Exposing The Truth About 101

Although it hurts, I think we have to say that if there is fraud of any kind... it has to be exposed, no matter what the cost. The truth is of more value than anything else ~ John Gerhart (11/27/1907 to 1/9/1981) a United States Air Force four-star general who served as commander of the North American Air Defense Command under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson.

This is a commentary that concerns shitheads and people who are nuts. These aren't pejoratives I ever used to describe anyone, or I didn't use them first, at least... this is a bogus claim made by the blogger Joe "Truth 101" Kelly (AKA Joe Hagstrom). That I called him "nuts" and he only began talking about me behind my back to other bloggers about me being "nuts" in response to me slandering him with the insult first. This is an untruth that Mr. Kelly presented in his shithead post, and is an allegation I absolutely must refute.

Near the end of a commentary on his blog in which he labels me a shithead, he makes the following claim...

Joe Kelly-Hagstrom: But since all this "nuts" thing, which WD actually started long before I called him nuts and I submitted his comment on Will's shitheaded blog as proof, I've had no choice but to identify them as shitheads. None of this is my fault. The only responsibility I bear is deciding who is a shithead and who isn't. (8/28/2013 at 1:35pm). See DSD #29 for a copy of Joe's commenary.

Categorically false. And Joe101 knows it; or should know it. Perhaps he does not remember, but I sure as hell do. In any case, Joe101's statement is not factually accurate, and I can prove it. The comment he speaks of, the one that he submitted to Willis' shitheaded blog as proof, is as follows (Joe101 published it in the comment thread when I asked him what his "proof" was)...

Joe Kelly-Hagstrom: This is the meat of the comment you left calling me a "nut" WD. Further proof you not only started this whole thing, but that you are indeed a shithead. I took no offense. Just WD being WD. But God forbid someone say you're nuts. You big baby. Now quit being a shithead. And you should apologise to me and everyone else for making this conversation, or should I call it now, an intervention as nobody has come to your defense, other than me if you open your shithead eyes. (8/30/2013 at 6:50pm).

What follows is Joe Kelly-Hagstrom quoting me...

Joe Kelly-Hagstrom quoting Dervish Sanders: What kind of a nut shutters his blog (or restricts readership to "invited" readers only), says he can't blog anymore because it gets him in trouble, then opens up his blog for the world to see again? You think those people you got in trouble with won't check to see if your blog is active again? I asked if you could not simply delete the post that "got you in trouble" and you said no. But that looks like you did delete that post (I don't recall what the title was, but I do recall the subject matter... and it does appear to be gone). (Original source for quoted comment 2/22/2012 at 9:08am).

This is Joe101's "proof" that I called him a "nut" first and that I owe him an apology. Trouble is, I remember making that comment, and it was in RESPONSE to him calling me a nut. Actually I heard about this from Willis Hart. He told me on his blog that a Liberal Buddy of mine had contacted him via facebook and said I was nuts.

I wrote a post about this conversation on my blog titled, "w-dervish's Liberal Buddies Told Willis Hart on Facebook that w-dervish Is A Frigging Nut". In response to this post Joe101 said "You're nuts", thereby confirming that he was the person Willis Hart described as the "Liberal Buddy" who told him I was nuts. The date that comment was made was 2/18/2012 (Joe101's is the first comment the post received). The date of the comment (by me on his blog) that Joe101 says is the one that is "proof" I called him a nut first? 2/22/2012.

So, he says the "proof" I called him a nut first is a comment I made on 2/22/2012 which was in reality MY RESPONSE to him calling me a nut on 2/18/2012 (actually this is the date I found out that it was Joe101 who called me a nut behind my back in a conversation with Willis Hart that took place earlier on facebook). As anyone can see 2/18/2012 is a date that occurred BEFORE 2/22/2012. And 2/15/2012 (the date I found out from Willis Hart that Joe101 was calling me a nut in a conversation that took place on Facebook) is earlier still.

As everyone can see, Joe101's claims about who called who a "nut" first are not accurate. So why the hell does he remember that I called him a nut first? And why does he not apologize after I point out to him that he has the dates wrong? Instead he says "You started it with your nuttery". This is his response to my irrefutable proof that he called me a nut first (and that what he says in his post is utter bullshit)?! Why not admit the mistake? I ask again, who the hell would like being called "nuts" or a "shithead"? I'm guessing nobody. But I object and Joe101 says I'm a "big baby"?!

And apparently NOBODY else (as Joe101 pointed out) sees anything wrong with this? Nobody at all, huh? Even after Joe101 called me a nut FIRST I still acted in a friendly manner toward him (so this "big baby" charge is bullcrap). But now (with this "shithead" post), not only does he toss red meat to my detractors (Willis Hart, Dennis Marks, and Lester Nation), but he sits back and enjoys the show as the raving maniac Steve laughs it up. This is, in my strong opinion, the definition of a shithead. As much as it pains me to say it, Joe Kelly (AKA Joe Hagstrom, AKA Truth 101) is a shithead of the highest order. I wonder... does that mean the Republican conversion is complete?

Sequence of events that prove Joe101 is a shithead in regards to his claim that I "started" the insulting by calling him "nuts" first

2/15/2012: Date Willis Hart told me Joe101 was calling me NUTS behind my back on Facebook.

2/18/2012: Date Joe101 called me NUTS on my blog in response to a post I wrote about what Willis Hart told me.

2/22/2012: Date Dervish Sanders called Joe101 "nuts" on Joe101's blog (this is the comment he says "proves" I insulted him first).

SWTD #203