A Moron's Rebuttal To An Outraged Climate Change Denier

All morons hate it when you call them a moron ~ J.D. Salinger (1/1/1919 to 1/27/2010) American writer; author 1951 novel "The Catcher in the Rye", which was an immediate popular success. His depiction of adolescent alienation and loss of innocence in the protagonist Holden Caulfield was influential, especially among adolescent readers. The novel remains widely read and controversial, selling around 250,000 copies a year.

This post is a follow-up to my last commentary, "Severe Moderate Delusions: Miscellaneous 1". Said commentary was titled "miscellaneous" because it was my response to THREE posts by the blogger Willis V. Hart. The reason for the follow-up is because Mr. Hart is NOT happy that I disagreed with him in regards to one of those posts.

Specifically, it was the one where he took issue with the response of some college professors at San Jose after they received some free books from the Heartland Institute. The professors posted a picture on the school's website that showed them burning a climate change denial book (actually, just holding a lighter under it. I do not know if they actually burned it. I'm thinking they did not).

The post by Mr. Hart was titled, "At the Intersection of Fascism, Stupidity, And Intolerance". Does Mr. Hart think only fascists burn books? Apparently he does. Also, when it comes to intolerance for the stupidity behind climate change denialism, I do not take as much offense as Mr. Hart does.

My thoughts on the "book burning" infuriated Mr. Hart and he quickly composed a number of comments and posts in which he expressed his extreme outrage at what I said. Although he deleted my comments to his blog first. I was surprised he published them in the first place, as he banned me from his blog quite awhile ago... now, the circumstances of my banning require additional explanation, so let me let you know what happened leading up to the comments that sparked Willis' outrage FIRST (before getting back to the actual comments)...

As you may have noticed, I recently upgraded to Google PLUS, and in doing so my ID changed from "w-dervish" to "Dervish Sanders". It is Google's policy that when you link your Blogger account and Google PLUS account your Blogger ID is automatically changed to match your Google+ ID. When this happened I wondered if the ID change would allow me to comment on Hart's blog.

I continued to comment on his blog with my old ID after he banned me, and his response was to send all my comments to Blogger's Spam folder . After doing this a few times Blogger automatically sent my comments to the Spam folder... not only on Hart's blog but on ANY Blogger blog (which caused problems for me when attempting to comment on the blogs of others) [1].

With the ID change I wondered if my comments would still be sent to the Spam folder. Apparently not, because before writing my "miscellaneous" commentary I submitted some of my thoughts to Willis for approval (he has comment moderation enabled), and he published them. I'm guessing they did not automatically go to the Spam folder (where he would not even have seen them) and he published them by mistake. He deleted them awhile latter, but they were visible for a few hours.

So, back to the comments that enraged Mr. Hart... he saw them (because he accidentally published them) and responded to them (firstly) as follows...

Dervish Sanders: The professors obviously have no tolerance for stupidity. I don't think that makes them fascist though. [Mr. Hart deleted this comment before any of the other comments were made]. Dennis Marks: Only someone of a fascist mindset would support the idea of burning books. (5/10/2013 AT 4:55pm). Willis Hart: Guess who didn't seem to have an issue with it. (5/10/2013 AT 8:05pm). Dennis Marks: Probably the same kind of person who might not have a problem putting "deniers" in ovens, too. If one supports one of the bad things Nazis do, then why not others? (5/11/2013 AT 2:40am). Barlowe Bayer: I give up. Who are you referring to? (5/11/2013 AT 10:02am). Willis Hart: wd. (5/11/2013 AT 10:20am). [He means me. Willis and the others on his blog refer to me as "wd".] Dennis Marks: Oh. I sensed a temporary drop in the intelligence of the discourse. Thanks for explaining. (5/11/2013 AT 11:22am).

I don't support book burning. I explained this (and specifically stated it multiple times) in my expanded commentary here on my blog. But Willis automatically jumps to the conclusion that I support book burning. I just said the professors had no tolerance for stupidity... by which, I meant the stupidity of believing 97% of climate scientists are incompetent or lying (more on this later).

That's nothing compared to the conclusion dmarks jumps to, however. In his mind I'm just like the Nazis and want to murder anyone who disagrees with the science on global climate change. But dmarks is insane, as I've documented on this blog in detail.

The thing is, that no matter what batcrap crazy comment dmarks makes, Willis never pushes back. Ever. Is it not highly insulting to the holocaust victims, survivors, and Jews in general to CONTINUALLY compare anyone who disagrees with you politically to these mass murderers? If not Nazis he's comparing those who he disagrees with politically to then it is Pol Pot or some other dictator who has killed (or is killing) his own people.

Here dmarks says I'm like a Nazi because I say I don't believe the majority of climate scientists are lying. I'd think any non-bigoted person would raise some kind of objection. ONCE (dmarks does this ALL THE TIME). But Mr. Hart has NEVER raised the slightest objection. And it's ME that he bans.

Perhaps you can understand why my opinion of both of these individuals is pretty low. It probably also has something to do with why I was banned. Not only was I growing frustrated with Mr. Hart regarding his fake moderation, but there was also the issue of his tolerance for dmarks' highly offensive racist and antisemitic comments (which they ARE, even though he presents himself as someone who is neither a racist or a bigot).

And then there was the fact that Mr. Hart frequently swore at me and called me stupid and a loser whenever I posted one to many disagreeable comments. So my comments grew less and less polite (shall we say). Although I never swore at him (or I wasn't the first to resort to profanity, at least. If he swore at me I'd swear at him... some of the time).

Anyway, back to the topic of my deleted comments (the ones Mr. Hart accidentally published). In addition to the comments (above) my thoughts caused him to compose two new blog posts, as follows...

Willis Hart: On a Moron Who Knows Absolutely Nothing About Climatology Referring to the Reasoned and Well Thought Out Works of Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, William Happer, And Freeman Dyson as "Stupidity"... Life is wondrous, isn't it? (5/10/2013 AT 4:43pm).

And, then after that one he posted another titled "Some Additional Stupidity, I'm Gathering". This post contained a series of comments about climate change from a number of "skeptics" who say that... CO2 isn't a pollutant, warming (if there is any) will actually be awesome, we've got bigger problems, climate change is "absolutely" pseudoscience, yada yada yada... he often posts denialist rebuttals like this several times a day (and he's accused ME of having mental problems!).

OK, clearly I am the "moron", but, in my defense, I was not referring to the authors (specifically) as stupid. I was referring to the notion that a majority of the world's climatologists are incompetent or lying. Frankly, I find that more than a little unlikely. My opinions on this have nothing to do with my knowing anything about climatology, only my disbelief that all these scientists are involved in a conspiracy to make us believe in something that isn't happening.

Let's just say I'm highly skeptical when it comes to The Hartster's contention that scientists who say global warming is real (and man is responsible for it; or enough of it to make a difference) are lying and faking their research. The conspiracy that I'm convinced is the one that is actually happening? That would be the one in which the research of the dissenters is funded by big oil and coincidentally finding that global warming isn't happening. But, being a moron, what the hell would I know?

7/19/2015 Update: I found out later Blogger wasn't sending my comments submitted to Willis' blog to his spam folder automatically. Apparently it does not work that way, as I still comment on Willis' blog (to annoy him) and he has commented a number of time on how he deletes what I submit (without reading). Why some of my comments submitted on other blogs suddenly went to the Spam folders (of the respective blogs where the comments were submitted)... I do not know. But it did happen. I haven't had any problems with this issue since, however.

SWTD #147, wDel #22.

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.

Stooge For Plutocrats Slanders Defender of Social Security Senator Sanders

The conspicuously wealthy turn up urging the character building values of the privation of the poor ~ John Kenneth Galbraith (10/15/1908 to 4/29/2006) a Canadian economist, public official, and a leading proponent of 20th-century American liberalism. He was a Keynesian and an institutionalist. His books on economic topics were bestsellers from the 1950s through the 2000s and he filled the role of public intellectual from the 1950s to the 1970s on matters of economics.

I have posted many a commentary in which I discuss the wacky statements of a certain Conservative blogger, but this, folks, is simply beyond the pale. I just noticed this comment from Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) posted on the Contra O'Reilly blog...

Dennis Marks: And speaking of Bernie Sanders, the greediest member of Congress, he has announced plans to steal the contents of the Social Security trust. No lock box is safe from a greedy thief who is good at plundering. (5/6/2013 AT 5:06pm). DSD #13. Screenshot.

To prove his allegations, Mr. Marks links to a video (which I have included at the bottom of this post). If you watch this video - or are simply familiar with Senator Sanders' stance on Social Security - you're probably thinking WTF? Bernie Sanders is a strong defender of Social Security (if not the STRONGEST). The video in question is titled "Hands off Social Security", and in it Mr. Sanders speaks out against any debt reduction deal that includes cuts in Social Security payments. He is DEFENDING our benefits against those who wish to steal them!

That Dennis has flipped reality upside down causes me to believe he is on the side of those who wish to steal from the fund. Remember when ex-preznit gwb said the fund contained "just IOUs"? He said that because he wanted to cut payments. This is what Republicans do - they pretend there is no surplus and that the fund is in trouble and needs "reforming". But, as Senator Sanders points out in the video, the fund has a huge surplus. Cutting benefits to retirees is the theft Senator Sanders is speaking against!

In opposing Senator Sanders on this Dennis MUST be siding with those who wish to steal from needy seniors. These are the "greedy thieves" from which "no lock box is safe". In making these false allegations Dennis sides with the plutocrats who are worried that their taxes may be increased to help pay down the debt. These plutocrats want seniors to pay. They want to raise the retirement age, which is benefit cut. They want to adjust the COLA, which is a benefit cut.

Should we slightly increase taxes on the wealthy, or, God forbid, get rid of the Social Security payroll tax cap (so the wealthy would pay SS tax on all their earnings and not just the first $113,700)? The wealthy elites (and Dennis Marks) say HELL NO! Our debt is something that should be foisted on to the backs of our needy seniors. Our seniors are the ones who should pay for bush's needless (and illegal) wars. Our seniors are the ones who should pay back the money bush shoveled out the door (to reward his cronies, including VP Cheney's Halliburton) for "nation building" in Iraq and Afghanistan (a large chunk of which was simply wasted or lost).

In peddling this blatant falsehood Dennis voices his support for this thievery - that is, unless he is joking. This is a comment Mr. Marks made in response to a "joke post" by the Contra O'Reilly blog proprietor, Willis Hart. In Mr. Hart's joke post he insisted that Progressives have a plan to confiscate the entire salaries of CEOs and give it to lower wage earners in those companies. In the title of his post the Hartster claims, "I shit you not".

Surprise, it turns out he was shitting his readers with a not-at-all funny "joke". But even though it was a "joke", this post shows: [1] How much of a Conservative Mr. Hart is, and [2] How much Mr. Hart hates Progressives.

If what Mr. Marks said was a "joke", it is a joke that makes absolutely no sense. Who is he saying Senator Sanders is proposing the government steal from? Senator Sanders says benefits should not be cut, which means he is OPPOSED to stealing from those who have paid in and EARNED their benefits. The only "stealing" I'd have guessed Mr. Marks would be opposed to would be "stealing" that involved raising the taxes of the wealthy so the bonds in the SS trust fund can be paid back.

So, what do you think me-buck? Is Dennis batcrap crazy for nonsensically claiming that Bernie Sanders is a "greedy thief" who wishes to "plunder" the social security trust fund, or is he an unrepentant stooge for the plutocrats (who knows exactly what he is doing in disseminating these lies)?

Video 1: Bernie Sanders defends Social Security and speaks against it's theft (15:01).

Video 2: Cenk Uygur explains how they plan to steal from the Social Security trust fund. Note: This is the video to watch. The first one is too long - I only included it because it is the one Dennis thinks proves his point that Senator Sanders wants to steal from the SS trust fund (3:38).

See Also
[1] Bernie Sanders: Hero Of The Ruling Class, A Greedy Thief Who Is Good At Plundering, DSD #13.
[2] What Is Dennis Marks' Agenda Re Bernie Sanders Positive Comments When He Previously Spoke Negatively About Sanders? TADM #82, 10/5/2015.
[3] Chris Christie As Preznit Would Be A "Greedy Thief Who Is Good At Plundering" Re The Social Security Trust Fund SWTD #316, 11/1/2015.

SWTD #145, dDel #8.

Severe Conservative Delusions: Van Jones Maoist Edition

Dirty energy backers blocked cap-and-trade, which would have spurred green innovation and enterprise. Now they complain that we have not had more progress regarding green jobs? That would be like someone tripping a racehorse and then saying, "See, I told you that horse was no good"! ~ Van Jones (dob 9/20/1968) explains his frustration at the Republican efforts to stymie the creation of green jobs during the brief period he served as green jobs "czar" (March to September of 2009).

The blogger dmarks (real name Dennis Marks) is one mentally strange Conservative, the most severely deluded one I have ever encountered, in fact. And it is Dennis Marks who is the subject of the "Severe Conservative Delusions" series of commentaries on this blog, of which this post is the 5th entry. In this commentary I examine the unnatural obsession of Dennis with former Green Jobs Adviser Van Jones. Van Jones is a progressive advocate and political activist Dennis hates with a passion.

For those of you unfamiliar with Mr. Jones, here is a short excerpt from his bio at Wikipedia...

In March 2009 Jones was appointed by President Barack Obama to the newly created position of Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, where he worked... to advance the administration's climate and energy initiatives... In July 2009 he became "embroiled in a controversy" over his past political activities, including a public comment disparaging congressional Republicans, his name appearing on a petition for 911Truth.org, and allegations of association with a Marxist group during the 1990s. For these issues, Van Jones was heavily criticized by conservatives. Jones resigned from the position in early September 2009...

Mr. Marks doesn't just hate Van Jones, he LOATHES him. The reason being Mr. Jones' "past political activities" that include an "association with a Marxist group during the 1990s". That last bit in particular rankles Mr. Marks' sensibilities, which is why he brings it up frequently, as in this 5/5/2013 comment on the blog Contra O'Reilly...

Dennis Marks: ...by the way, appropriate to energy discussions, I found this photo when looking up unrepentant Maoist extremist Van Jones... That windmill behind him sure does inspire confidence, doesn't it? This is while I looked up the figures from various sources to find out that Van Jones was likely paid $60,000 for six months work as a jobs czar. During this period, unemployment increased 14%, with more than a million losing their jobs. What a public servant! Perhaps Jones saw the goal of a jobs czar to eliminate jobs, just as a poverty czar tries to eliminate poverty. He sure acted like it. (5/5/2013 AT 2:43pm).

There are, of course, numerous problems with this statement by Dennis about Van Jones. Namely that Dennis is lying through his teeth about Mr. Jones being an "unrepentant Maoist extremist". Wikipedia notes that "in October 2005 Jones said he was a rowdy nationalist... but that by August of...1992... he was a Communist. Later he became a member of a socialist collective called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM) that protested... police brutality".

It is because of Van Jones' affiliation with STORM that Dennis calls him a Maoist, but I say, so the hell what? Is Dennis in favor of police brutality? In any case, all this is in Mr. Jones past, as he explains on his website...

Van Jones: I experimented with world-views and philosophies and I was an angry young guy, I was on the left side of Pluto. The great thing about America is, you can think whatever wacky thing you want to think, and you are free to change your mind once you get older.

In other words, Van Jones was a champion of the poor and minority communities (in opposing police brutality). Previously he believed that far-left tactics were the way to accomplish his worthy goals, but he has since come to the realization that his goals can best be accomplished within the framework of our free market system. Van Jones now says he is "probably the biggest champion of free market solutions for America's problems, period". I don't know about you, but he doesn't sound like a Commie to me.

As for Van Jones "repenting", what Dennis means is that he believes Mr. Jones is still a Maoist/Communist and wants America to adopt that ideology. I guess Mr. Jones referring to his past views a "wacky" and stating that he CHANGED HIS MIND isn't good enough for Mr. Marks. Dennis KNOWS Van is lying. I know this (that Dennis does not believe Van Jones has rejected Communism/Maoism/Marxism/Leninism/other-far-leftism) because on 12/8/2012 Dennis posted the following comment on the Contra O'Reilly blog...

Dennis Marks: Van Jones' views are the worst of the worst, at least as bad as Nazism. He's a Maoist. You know, the political ideology that demands execution of a large percentage of the population in order to achieve political reform. He's the equivalent of David Duke. Based on his professed political ideology, he's the kind of guy who could look around a crowded room and think of who he'd send to the death camps if he were leader. (8/29/2011 AT 4:12pm).

So, what Van Jones desires (in his heart of hearts) is mass murder? What utter bullshit. These are slanderous and completely unsupported-by-the-facts accusations that Dennis pulled straight from his ass. But Dennis has a history of slandering and lying about Left-leaning individuals, frequently stating that they wish to murder large numbers of people, instead of helping them (which is their true agenda).

Van Jones is not "one of the most truly evil men in politics", he is one of the truly good ones. Mr. Jones' most recent project is "Rebuild the Dream", a movement dedicated to making the changes necessary so that more citizens can attain the American Dream. The problem, according to Mr. Jones, is related to the "Wall Street bailouts, tax handouts, and corporate loopholes are draining our nation's wealth". How can this goal possibly be characterized as "evil"?

Fact is, Dennis himself opposed and opposes the "Wall Street bailouts, tax handouts, and corporate loopholes" (or he SAYS he does). As for the other lies of Dennis... he says Van Jones worked "as a jobs czar". Close, but not quite. He was specifically in charge of Green Jobs... and Dennis thinks that after a mere 6 months his efforts should have been bearing fruit? Van Jones was just getting started when he was forced to resign. That unemployment increased while he was on the job (due to the bush recession) is not something that can be attributed to Mr. Jones.

As for his salary, I'm not going to bother looking into it. Whatever it was I'm sure it was appropriate and in line with what other advisers earn (and earned, under Obama and under past presidents). How Van Jones is at all like David Duke, I have no idea what-so-ever, except to note that Republicans quite often accuse Black progressives of racism (David Duke is a racist, so Dennis must be accusing Van Jones of racism). "Race hustler" is another slur Conservatives love to apply to Black progressives that advocate on behalf of, and stand up for poor Blacks (and often poor Whites as well). It's a thinly veiled attempt to paper over their own racism.

Dennis Marks is guilty of this sort of behavior, as I documented in a prior blog post. Although I believe the primary objection of Dennis to Van Jones centers on his PAST identification with far-left ideologies, and not the fact that he's black. But would Dennis be comparing Van Jones to David Duke if he (Van Jones) were White? I doubt it. But, to be "fair" I am positive that Dennis is more of a socialist hater than a racist.

Communism and Socialism are ideologies that say we are "our brother's keepers"; that we need to look out for each other and make sure everyone has, at the very least, the bare essentials of life. It is an ideology that says nobody should live in poverty, or we should (at least) do our best to reduce poverty as much as we can. Dennis rejects these ideas. In the Dickensian world of Dennis individuals should be able to accumulate much more wealth than they need, even if it means a large number of people have to live in abject poverty.

It is true that Communism and Socialism, when implemented on a national scale, have failed. Mainly due to the greed of the leaders who used their positions to grab as much wealth and power for themselves as they could. This is why Van Jones wised up and realized his goal of HELPING PEOPLE (not murdering them) could be be attained by using the system already in place. A democratic free market system where we can implement as much socialism as we want (via our elected officials).

Democratic Socialism can never lead to genocide as the liar Dennis claims. It is only when the people hand off absolute power to a small group (no matter the ideology) that bad things tend to happen. It is wealth and power concentrated in a limited number of hands we need to be concerned about, not the desire to HELP PEOPLE. But Dennis does not want to help people, at least not at the expense of the wealthy.

If people cannot accumulate vast fortunes beyond what they could possibly spend in one lifetime, Dennis Marks says "NO". You have to draw the line somewhere, after all. If not, then you'll probably go from helping people to wanting to murder them, as Van Jones (in the demented imagination of Dennis) obviously wants to.

As we all know serial killers often start out helping animals, right? That's before they move on to helping people. Then comes the mass murdering. Or desire to kill on a large scale. At least that's how Dennis thinks it works, apparently.

You know, If I were to compare Dennis and Van Jones I would have to conclude that Mr. Marks is far, FAR more evil.

SWTD #144, dDel #7.

Severe Moderate Delusions: Don't Worry Be Happy Edition

Global warming is not about science, but about politics - that is, about expanding the power of elites using the coercive instruments of government to control the lives of people everywhere ~ Libertarian Charles Kadlec explains the global climate change conspiracy theory in a 7/25/2011 Forbes Op/Ed.

Conservatives like to tell us that no matter what humanity does, the earth will persist. We can continue to pollute our atmosphere by burning fossil fuels indefinitely without restraint, because the earth will adapt. Global warming denier Willis Hart echoes this sentiment in a 5/2/2013 post titled "Adaptive Seasoning"...

Willis Hart: The earth is essentially a living organism, and living organisms mostly adapt. Yes, a fair amount of carbon dioxide has entered the atmosphere... but there has not, NOT, been a runaway greenhouse effect. There hasn't... because the planet has a way of healing/cooling itself via an increase in cloud cover... a derivation of the increases in water vapor... (5/2/2014 AT 9:00pm).

Willis Hart refers to himself as a Moderate because he supports marriage equality and raising taxes back to the Clinton-era rates (but only because the national debt is so high, otherwise he'd be opposed. The wealthy already shoulder an unfair/high percentage of the tax load, and he has written MANY posts expressing his displeasure about this fact). But the Hartster's opinions on other matters more often than not are decidedly conservative in nature.

As I've referred on this blog before, as of late Mr. Hart's posts have largely been of the global-climate-change-denying variety. I've responded to a few of them (with posts on this blog), but he authors so damn many that refuting them all is not something I really care to spend as much time as it would take doing. Unlike him, I like to blog about other subjects. I've decided to respond to this one, however. Because, this one, I believe, does a good job of illustrating why I believe Willis is a Conservative at his core (as are Libertarians).

Conservatives (or Libertarians) believe quite strongly in the "survival of the fittest" Darwinian notion that the poor have only themselves to blame for their lot in life (with few exceptions), and that the rich got rich because they work hard and are generally better people than the rest of us. This explains why Mr. Hart takes exception to suggestions that the rich aren't paying their "fair share" when it comes to taxes (they earned it, they deserve it, and they should keep it). It also explains his fervent denialism when it comes to global warming.

The wealthy making money hand over fist while destroying the planet could be considered morally objectionable - if what they were doing was actually destroying the planet. But deny this fact and the moral issue is eliminated. While it is true that humans can't destroy the planet - because, as Mr. Hart points out, the earth is very much like a living organism. It can and will adapt. That isn't at issue. What is at issue is if the earth "adapting" will result in a planet that is less hospitable for humanity.

Mr. Hart contends (in his post) that the earth will adapt in a way that makes it possible for humanity to continue on as normal; that we can continue to spew as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we please (Yes, please build the Keystone XL pipeline so the carbon dioxide from Canada's extremely dirty tar sands oil can be spewed into our atmosphere).

Why, isn't that considerate of earth, to take humanity into account whilst adapting? I don't know about you, but I doubt the earth cares whether the human species continues on or becomes extinct. That it would is a notion is utterly laughable.

Mr. Hart theorizes that more water vapor in the air (due to seawater evaporating as the planet warms) leads to more clouds which results in more of the sun's rays being reflected back into space. The earth is taking care of this global warming problem for us, in other words (how considerate of earth!). Now you may say, "this theory sounds good, but is it true"?

Unfortunately it is false according to a 2010 study published in the journal Science which reveals that water vapor in the atmosphere actually contributed to global warming. Although a decrease in this water vapor since 2000 explains a slowdown in the warming.

Research... suggests that almost one-third of the global warming recorded during the 1990s was due to an increase in water vapor in the high atmosphere... [but] satellite measurements... show that water vapor levels in the stratosphere have dropped about 10% since 2000. When the scientists fed this change into a climate model, they found it could have reduced, by about 25% over the last decade, the amount of warming expected to be caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. (Water vapor caused one-third of global warming in 1990s, study reveals by David Adam. The Guardian 1/28/2010).

That temperatures are flattening out over the last decade has been a staple of Mr. Hart's argument against climate change. Scientists say they aren't sure why water vapor levels are decreasing, but the phenomena certainly does not disprove climate change. This explains why we have not, not, not, NOT seen a runaway greenhouse effect... yet. As for more water vapor causing increased cloud cover (and counteracting global warming), another study published by Science disputes that as well...

A... study published in the July 24 issue of Science [says] The data showed that as the Pacific Ocean has warmed over the past several decades... low-level cloud cover has lessened. That might be due to the fact that as the earth's surface warms, the atmosphere becomes more unstable and draws up water vapor from low altitudes to form deep clouds high in the sky [and] those types of high-altitude clouds don't have the same cooling effect. ...Low-level clouds tend to dissipate as the ocean warms... "That would create positive feedback, a reinforcing cycle that continues to warm the climate", says Amy Clement, a climate scientist at the University of Miami and the lead author of the Science study. (In a Warming World, Cloudy Days Are a Boon by Bryan Walsh. Time Magazine 7/24/2009).

So there you have it folks, another "the climate change scientists are hoodwinking us" post by fanatical denialist Willis Hart rebutted. And now we know why he does it too. He wants us to not worry and be happy as the wealthy elites rake in the moola selling dirty fossil fuels. Charles Kadlec is correct in that one side of this debate takes the stance they do in order to expand the power of the elites, but it is the side preaching denialism, not the other way around!

This also explains why Mr. Hart rails against green energy technology. The wealthy elites will make money in that field as well, but why cut off their windfall from fossil fuels prematurely? No need to even consider it if earth has our back and will take care of the warming problem for us. Perhaps we should send a gift basket to express our gratitude? What do you think me-buck?

Image Description: Diagram showing 4 of the 5 principal layers of earth's atmosphere (the 5th layer, which is not shown, is the exosphere).

SWTD #143, wDel #20.

I Attend A Sporting Event

I hate all sports as rabidly as a person who likes sports hates common sense -- Henry Louis Mencken (9/12/1880 to 1/29/1956) an American journalist, essayist, magazine editor, satirist, critic of American life and culture, and scholar of American English.

"I am attending a sporting event tomorrow and would like you to accompany me", my friend proclaimed.

"No way", I replied. "I am not a fan of sport, and you know that".

But my friend would not take no for an answer. "You'll love it" he promised. "Besides, real men are sports fans".

So, against my better judgment I agreed, despite the fact that the fans of this specific sport had a reputation of getting particularly rowdy.

The man at the counter gave me a disapproving look when I handed him my ticket. "Where's your jersey?" he demanded to know.

"I'm not rooting for either team", I explained.

"Sorry, but the wearing of a jersey is required", the man insisted.

My friend, who was standing behind me, said "See, I told you". People in line began to grumble. Several loudly suggested that I be ejected from the stadium. "Give him a jersey the same as mine", my friend interjected. "I'll pay for it".

My friend paid and handed me my jersey. "OK", he said, "let's get inside. The game is about to begin".

We found our seats just as the action commenced. Out of sight a small bird spread it's wings and took flight. It flew high into the sky over the arena, it's squawks causing many to take notice. A man in the stands happened to look up at an inopportune moment and the bird dropped an unpleasant gift directly onto his face. The man cursed in anger, the shock of what had just happened causing him to spill his beer in his lap. A nearby child laughed.

"I do not understand this game", I said turning to my companion; the friend who had insisted I attend. "Sport is not my idea of entertainment. Why should I care who wins or who loses?" I complained.

Which was why I refused to wear the required jersey that identified the team I was rooting for. Several uneventful hours went by and I nearly fell asleep.

"Wake up", my friend said, nudging me. "Now it is time for the finale. Trust me, it is about to get a lot more interesting".

One of the players dribbled the ball down the court and dunked it. The crowd stood and cheered wildly. By coincidence the player's name was Bradley Duncan. Then the ball hit the ground and bounced back into the player's hands. He proceeded to tuck the ball under his arm and run down the court. Players from the opposing team swung at the charging man with their wiffle bats, attempting to cause him to fumble.

Duncan withstood the blows and made it to the opposite end of the court. He jumped up in the air and spiked it. The crowd stood and cheered once again. Some points were added to his team's total on the scoreboard. The referee retrieved the spiked pigskin and jogged to the center of the court. Two players faced off and the referee dropped the ball.

One of the players kicked the ball and it flew into the air. Then all the players on the court drew their pistols and began firing at the soaring sphere. The ball exploded in a blinding flash that caused everyone to drop to the floor. Several players were wounded by flying shrapnel, including Duncan, who screamed in agony when a white hot nail pierced his cornea.

Points were again added to the scoreboard, this time to the opposing team's total. Duncan was removed from the court on a stretcher. Suddenly the crowd began chanting as the countdown clock neared zero. Another play was attempted but there simply was not enough time remaining. The game ended when an air horn sounded loudly, deafening more than a few players and spectators alike.

Everyone in the arena at once bolted for the doors, creating a mad stampede in which several people were crushed to death. Luckily my friend and I made it safely out of the arena with minor injuries. Out in the streets those who had been rooting for the team that lost began to smash car and shop windows, venting their anger. Numerous vehicles were set ablaze by the rioters. One of the burning cars suddenly and violently exploded.

Several people standing nearby were engulfed in flames. They ran about wildly, screaming as their flesh burned. Within a few minutes they dropped dead, although their bodies continued to smolder. Some of the brawlers produced baseball bats they had presumably brought with them in anticipation of a violent rumble following the conclusion of the game. Those with bats swung them viciously, bashing in the heads of multiple victims.

Others withdrew knives from their pockets, while still others used brass knuckles to attack their foes. Those without weapons used their fists. The casualties mounted on each side as my friend and I ducked into an alleyway.

"I'm no chicken", my friend protested, clearly desiring to enter the fray.

Suddenly an air horn sounded again. I looked up and saw the source of the unpleasant noise, a large blimp hovering overhead. An LCD display on the side of the blimp displayed the totals for each of the sporting teams that had faced off inside the arena.

"As per the rules of the game, points are added to each total reflecting how many on each side were just killed", a nearby stranger explained. "The numbers were obtained via a computer chip sewn into each jersey that monitors the wearer's health".

The new figures were tabulated and displayed on the LCD screen, resulting in victory being snatched away from one team and handed to the other. The winners became the losers. The victory cries of the fans of the now winning team were almost ear-splitting. The winners then proceeded to point and laugh at the fans of the opposing team. Those who were now the defeated were good sports about it though. They hung their heads in shame and quickly vacated the area.

"I guess you could call that interesting", I remarked, turning to my friend. But he wasn't there. I looked around and finally saw him lying on the ground, dead. Someone had bashed his head in with a brick. Falling to my knees I began to sob. Who could ever have imagined that my first time attending a sporting event would result in such tragedy?

Just then someone poked me sharply in the ribs.

"You can wake up now, the game is over", a familiar voice instructed. I opened my eyes to find my friend was still alive. Of course I had only been dreaming. Dreaming of something much more exciting than the exceedingly boring sporting competition I just slept through.

 swtd-142. ti-1.  Previous. Next.

A Society For Higher Ordered Persons AKA Stuck Up Know-it-All A-Holes

None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity -- Quote from the Christian Bible, Isaiah 59:4.

"I have a blog called Contra O'Reilly. The name is in reference to my desire to see partisan stooges like Bill O'Reilly (on the Right) and Rachel Maddow (on the Left) lose their audiences and be forced off the air. But, more importantly, and exactly why I direct your attention to it... this blog is where I espouse the ideals of political moderation that make up the bedrock of the The Higher Ordered Person's Society. HOPS is a place for politically mature persons such as ourselves", William Hartenbaum concluded.

There was light applause, and everyone in attendance smiled and nodded their heads, appreciating the compliment the speaker had paid them. "The reason I invited you to The Quarry tonight is because my friend and associate Mark Uston tells me that you are all superior people, and thus just the kind of individuals the Society is looking for".

"I agree with Mr. Hartenbaum", declared a distinguished looking gentleman who resembled Matt Lauer. "Even though I consider myself a Liberal, I very much admire William's blog. Although that is probably because I'm not one of the radical fringe types that are often more than a little nuts".

"I thank you for the compliment, Joe Truth. Even though we are primarily an organization that appeals to center of the road Blue Dog Democrats and socially liberal Republicans, we welcome persons of all political persuasions, so long as their views aren't too extreme. It's the extremes that are equally to blame for the inability of our legislators in Washington to compromise. These are the simpletons who see everything in black and white terms. For them politics is like 1970s wrestling. Their side represents the good guys and the other side is comprised of bad guys".

The ruckus from the table next to them suddenly became to much for William Hartenbaum to bear. He stopped talking when one of the group stood, sliding his chair back and slamming into the back of William's chair. He spun around, seething with rage. "Do you mind keeping it down", he angrily growled at the man who had just stood. "I'm sorry" said the man. Then the man slide his chair in and walked away toward the restrooms. Mark began to speak, but William tuned out his voice. Instead he listened to the group at the table next to theirs.

"I propose a fund-raiser in order to keep the homeless shelter that Johnny MooMoo started operational" a familiar voice suggested. It was that jerk Cliff Thesage. A local do-gooder who, for reasons not clear to William, was an associate of his friend Slade Leeds, the proprietor of restaurant and bar they were currently dining in.

"This fund-raiser could be a black and white tie affair, at $500 a plate", Cliff continued. "To be held in this very establishment. With the primary financier missing and presumed dead, the shelter has been experiencing serious cash flow problems". "That sounds like an excellent suggestion Cliff", an unknown woman at the table remarked.

"I'm glad to hear that" Cliff agreed. "I'm personal friends with the owner of the The Quarry, so there won't be any trouble setting it up. I charge each of you with contacting your friends. We need to get the word out. The shelter must be kept open in tribute to our good friend Johnny MooMoo, who, as you know, was just declared legally dead, even though his body was never located".

William saw red when Cliff voiced his determination to keep the homeless shelter open. William owned property in the area, and didn't like the idea of this magnet for undesirables being located in his neighborhood. William was fairly certain MooMoo's body would never be found, but the news that the shelter was not closing was disturbing.

Everyone had expected it to close with MooMoo's disappearance, but funding from an unknown donor kept it open. Now, with MooMoo being declared dead, the implementation of his final wishes would assure that the shelter would be kept open indefinitely, as William recently learned - via an article in the local paper concerning the reading of MooMoo's will. Seems that the bleeding heart Liberal had set aside a substantial amount of his wealth for that purpose.

"Hey, Cliff, what makes you think you and your do-gooder friends are welcome here?" William shouted. "What the hell are you blathering about Hartenbaum", Cliff shot back. "I called Slade personally and made a reservation", he added, then went back to talking with the patrons at his table. "What a rude fu*ker, turning his back on me", William said under his breath. But he decided not to pursue it any further. Cliff would get what was coming to him.

Mark had finished his pitch and now it was time to collect the membership dues. The half dozen people seated at the table took out their checkbooks and began filling in amounts starting at 500 dollars for a basic membership, up to 2 thousand dollars for the super platinum package. "Let's see how many of these dickheads pony up for super platinum", William whispered in Mark's ear.

Mark smiled, familiar with the grift. William buttered up the pigeons, and Mark completed the sales pitch. Now it was time to collect the spoils. Not that either of them needed the money. Most of it would be blown on parties that only the more Conservative members were invited to. Parties that included strippers, fine whiskey and blow.

"Hey, I heard that Liberal blogger you detest was arrested today", Mark informed his friend. "Indeed he was", William said, grinning widely. "I have it on good authority that he'll be sent away for several years of butt raping", William chuckled. But Mark cautioned that premature celebration might not be warranted. "I heard that Dervish's lawyer filed for a change of venue, arguing he couldn't get a fair trial in this jurisdiction", Mark said. And he was in a position to know, given that his brother was the DA.

"Well, we'll have to use our HOPS connections to ensure that does not happen", William replied sternly. "Dervish can not be allowed to get off lightly after what he did to Tony". "Tony is that cop friend of yours?", Mark asked. "Yes", William replied, growing annoyed. "You look annoyed", Mark said, observing the expression on William's face.

"Yeah, take a look at this", William complained, holding up one of the checks Mark had handed him earlier. "It's Joe Truth's check. I was sure he'd go for the super platinum membership, but this is only made out for 500 bucks. I expected a little gratitude after agreeing to invest in his company. It's pay to play and Joe needs to grease the wheels a little" William concluded handing the check back to Mark. "I want you to convince Joe that a super platinum membership is in his best interest".

Image: William Hartenbaum and Mark Uston attend the HOPS membership dinner at The Quarry.

 swtd-141. polfi-18.  Previous. Next.

w-dervish's Liberal Buddies Annoyed by His Nuttiness

The road to truth is long, and lined the entire way with annoying bastards ~ Alexander Jablokov (born 1956) an American writer and novelist.

Back in February of 2012 we learned that I'm a frigging Nut and my "Liberal Buddies" told Willis Hart (of Contra O'Reilly) so. With the publishing of that post it was revealed that one of the "Liberal Buddies" was Joe Kelly-Hagstrom (JKH) of Truth 101. He gave himself away by leaving a comment that said, "you're nuts". No other Liberal buddies came forward, and I have doubts as to whether there are (or ever were) any others.

Given the fact that JKH never retracted his comment, apologized, or even explained why he was dissing me behind my back (and to a Conservative blogger, no less), I never let it go completely. I kept jabbing at him by bringing it up on his blog and on other blogs. I also wrote some posts that portrayed (a fictional version of) JKH in a less than flattering light. I was not incredibly upset, however, and accepted that it was a mystery I would never get an explaination for.

JKH asked me if I wanted to start a "feud" with him over the kerfuffle, but when I called him on it he declined. I jabbed him again, and it appears as that was one jab to many. Maybe he didn't decide to restrict comments on his blog to "team members" on my account, but this development did occur shortly after I last commented on his blog.

Previously he has restricted his blog to "invited" readers only, which made the blog completely inaccessible to anyone except invitees. If not logged into blogger as an invitee all that displayed on your computer screen was a message that said, "this blog is open to invited readers only". JKH said the reason was because people he worked with (the higher ups, presumably) did not care for his Liberal political opinions. Now, Truth 101 is still visible to the world - it is just the commenting that is restricted.

So, question is, am I correct in my assumption that JKH being annoyed with me is why commenting is restricted to "team members"? Also, who are the team members? I'd be interested in knowing if anyone who reads this is a team member. Or has JKH effectively shut down his blog (again)? If you read this commentary please let me know what you know. If you read this don't click away. You've gotten this far and you are now OBLIGATED to share what you know. If it is nothing, then say you know nothing. But don't lie please.

Also, let me take the opportunity, not to apologize, but to let JKH know that I'll let the issue drop if he either invites me to comment on his blog - or removes the "invitation" restriction. Not that I'm desperate to comment on his blog. If he doesn't want me to comment on his blog so be it. But I don't think I did anything wrong, and him reopening his blog to me would be an acknowledgement of that FACT. If he had ever explained his "nutty" comment I would never annoyed him by bringing it up over and over - or written any of those posts previously mentioned that he may have been offended by.

And then there is Mr. Kelly-Hagstrom's idiotic insistence that blogger Willis Hart is a "Lefty". It's utterly ridiculous, as I have documented on this blog. If anyone has a justified reason to be annoyed, I feel it is me.

SWTD #140

The One Percent Beasts of Burden Who Carry Around the Dead Weight

...there are 47 percent... who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing... That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them -- Mitt Romney (dob 3/12/1947) oblivious entitled plutocrat and losing 2012 Republican presidential candidate.

"Hey, buddy, what's going on?", Dennis Marks inquired, addressing his compatriot William Hartenbaum. "Where did the boss man go?", he added, referring to Slade Leeds, the owner of The Quarry, the posh eating establishment William was sitting in the bar area of. "He went in back to deal with a delivery", William responded. "By the way, Slade told me the reason our prank the other night failed is because you fu*ked up and Joe Truth got the drugged plate of food".

"Now hold on", Dennis protested. "I clearly indicated to the waiter which plate of food was to go to whom". "Well, Dervish got the wrong plate, which is why he wasn't out of it and why he was able to taze Tony", William explained. "Damn!" Dennis exclaimed, obviously upset. "No matter", William said, grinning. "Things seem to have worked out better than we were planning. Tony is pressing charges against Dervish for assault. After the envious collectivist is arrested he's going to end up serving a lengthy prison term".

"Hahahahah", Dennis chuckled. "Ironic that the state will end up caring for him. It would be more fitting if he was sent to a forced labor camp though, given how much he admires the regimes of Leftist dictators". "Indeed it would", William agreed. "Even so, he'll lose his freedom and his job".

"The guy works?" an incredulous Dennis queried. "Yea", William responded. "At some liberal think tank, I believe". "Figures", Dennis spat disgustedly.

"Anyway, on another subject I have some good news. I just received word that my rich uncle is going to die soon. This is the rich uncle who is leaving me everything in his will! I'm going to be joining you in the one percent very soon", Dennis revealed, smiling broadly. "The as*hole has terminal brain cancer or something. It looks like all my hard work sucking up to the doofus is on the verge of paying off".

"Bad news, you'll soon be paying the same tax rate as me", William replied. "Yea, well, it's a smallish price to pay", Dennis countered. "I'd be willing to pay a little more for a strong national defense, but what really tees me off is how the one percent are like beasts of burden forced to carry around the dead weight".

"You got that right", William agreed. "Which is why must continually oppose the liberal fascists like Dervish who want us to pay more and more to support society's losers". "That guy disgusts me", Dennis agreed. "Instead of sending him to prison he should be deported to North Vietnam, Cuba or some other Bernie Sanders paradise. That way he could experience a socialist utopia that already exists, instead of attempting to transform the United States into one, like his hero Barack Obama wants to".

"Yes, the president who lies about the wealthy not paying their fair share", William agreed, frowning. "It's a shame you haven't received your inheritance already", William lamented. "Mark and I are going to be holding a dinner tomorrow night during which we will be welcoming a half dozen or so new members to Higher Ordered Persons Society".

Dennis looked dejected. "Couldn't you spot me the membership fee?", he begged. "Sorry, but that kind of special treatment isn't permitted. What if your uncle hangs in there for longer than you are expecting and you don't end up joining the one percent for some time? Even though we are friends the Society does have standards", William reminded his like-minded cohort.

"Well, that is disappointing", Dennis sighed. "I do understand however. What I do not understand is why you've invited Joe Truth to join. He is nowhere near as moderate as either of us". "How did you know Joe was invited?", William queried his friend. "I ran into him outside as he was leaving. I just got here for the evening shift", Dennis explained. "Don't worry about it", William assured his pal. "We never invite the lesser members to any strategy meetings, those are only for those in the inner circle. And I wouldn't be telling you this unless you were inner circle material".

"OK, I got it. You're playing him for a sucker again", Dennis correctly concluded, cracking a smile. "Absolutely", William confirmed. "I'm also close to closing a deal with Joe to take a large portion of the profits from a business venture he's planning. That is why he was here, we were discussing business". Dennis looked dejected again. "It must be sweet to be part of the investor class".

"Yes it is", William acknowledged. "We get to screw everyone from the lowly worker to those who actually come up with the ideas. And of course the consumer. It takes some of the sting out of our serving as beasts of burden in supporting the sluggards and parasites who live off the state".

"And, before you object", William added, reading his buddy's mind, "the screwing is in the mind of the Liberals only. As you and I both know there is no screwing when a deal is negotiated fairly". "You're right, I WAS about to object", Dennis confirmed. "Deals negotiated fairly being referred to as screwing is the kind of divisive rhetoric envious fools like Dervish use".

"I am going to screw Joe Truth, However", William revealed. "I inserted language in our contract that gives me control of the patent on his Big Boob Headphones, which I'm sure I can get him to sign without consulting a lawyer". With that pronouncement both William and Dennis laughed heartily.

 swtd-139. polfi-17.  Previous. Next.

On People Who Fantasize About Committing Gruesome Acts of Physical Violence

...it is almost always conservatives who use violence, even murder, to express political anger ~ Thomas Schaller, associate professor of political science at the University of MD Baltimore County. Quote from his 1/25/2011 article, "Violence on the Right: More Evidence".

If you're like me you might find it disturbing when you encounter a person who blogs about fantasies in which they commit gruesome acts of physical violence, regardless of who the person they want to hurt is. The disturbed individual I'm referring to is the blogger Willis Hart. The disturbing post I'm referring to is below.

Willis Hart: [In regards to] Kim Jong Un... That little degenerate stooge wouldn't last an hour on the street. Hell, I wouldn't even mind taking a crack at him (my 31 inch Roberto Clemente bat from the '70s more than likely my weapon of choice) myself (first respectfully waiting in line of course). (4/22/2013 AT 8:14pm).

Hey, I'm no fan of Un, but if he were dead another ruthless dictator would most likely take his place. The next in line (whoever that may be) would step up and play the same game... threatening the US and then extorting us for money and food to feed their starving citizens. It's a game they've played before, but given the fact that Un is new, apparently he thinks the time is right to dance this dance with us again.

That said, I have no personal animus against people I've never met. If not Un, it would be some other person engaging in the evilness that comes with the dictator gig. I certainly don't fantasize about doing him harm in the most gruesome way possible. It isn't as if Mr. Hart said he'd push a button that would result in Un being struck dead. Or say he'd shoot him if given the chance. He could also wish our Navy Seals would extract him and possibly kill him (or bring him to justice). No, Willis Hart wants to go after another human being with a baseball bat and personally beat him to death.

I say violence fantasies like these are signs of a person not being quite right in the head. Or a sign that said person is a Conservative. I mean, Conservatives are the types who fantasize about gunning down armed intruders. Right-wingers are the ones responsible for murdering abortion clinic doctors, and they are the ones who join the armed militias our government is watching.

But Willis WOULD respectfully wait in line. Those people - the ones he would wait in line behind - they would be North Koreans, and would have an actual legitimate reason to desire being incredibly brutal. And I'm sure they'd kill Un before Willis got a chance. So I guess the Hartster didn't think through his violence fantasy very well.

Also, how is Kim Jong Un a "stooge"? A "stooge" is a follower, but Un is the leader (Dictionary.com defines "stooge" as "any underling, assistant, or accomplice"). I think Willis used the word "stooge" (without regard to its definition) simply because it is one of the absolute worst thing a person can be, in his opinion. When I used to comment on his blog he frequently labeled me a "stooge".

As for Mr. Hart's use of the word "degenerate", Dictionary.com says it means, "to fall below a normal or desirable level in physical, mental, or moral qualities; deteriorate". Huh. I wonder just how often Willis fantasizes about hurting people he dislikes. Depending on how consuming these flights of fancy are, I think Willis may very well be lacking in "moral qualities" and fall into the "degenerate" category.

SWTD #138, wDel #19.