Intellectual Honesty Concerning ex-Preznit bush's WMD Lies

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it ~ George Santayana (12/16/1863 to 9/26/1952) philosopher, essayist, poet, and novelist. A lifelong Spanish citizen, Santayana was raised and educated in the United States, wrote in English and identified himself as an American. The quote presented here is from Santayana's The Life of Reason Vol. I, Reason in Common Sense.

Today, many (if not most) American citizens agree that our war with Vietnam was a mistake and we never should have gotten involved in a conflict that lead to the deaths of 58,220 American soldiers. I bring up Vietnam because some say a lie by Democratic President Lyndon Johnson lead to our involvement that escalated to full blown combat.

Professor of History at the University of Kentucky George C. Herring argues that Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and the Pentagon "did not knowingly lie about the alleged attacks, but they were obviously in a mood to retaliate and they seem to have selected from the evidence available to them those parts that confirmed what they wanted to believe".

So, although exactly what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin was later called into serious question, LBJ used the incidents to pressure Congress into passing the Southeast Asia Resolution on 8/7/1964 (which eventually lead to all out war).

Whether or not LBJ lied is, in my opinion, a tad more nebulous that the question of whether or not George W. bush lied in order to pressure Congress into allowing him to invade Iraq. Although blogger Willis Hart of the blog Contra O'Reilly strongly disagrees. In fact, according to him it is "quite chilling" that I would suggest such a thing. In a 6/3/2012 post Mr. Hart alludes to a bunch of other lies that LBJ may have told (I'm not well read when it comes to the Vietnam war, nor did I live through it), and (of course) he incorrectly assumes that I defend LBJ in regards to all of these probable lies. I was, however only referring to the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

The reason for Hart's posting was (in part) to gauge my "intellectual honesty" when it comes to declaring a president a "war criminal". I say George W. bush is a war criminal due (in part) to his lies about Iraq having WMD. I say ex-preznit bush knew Iraq possessed no WMD, as the inspectors on the ground at the time told him so. The Hartster disagrees.

Willis Hart: you gave me no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public... No testimony. No paper trail. Zero. (7/10/2012 AT 7:00pm).

Unfortunately Willis is wrong. The invasion of Iraq was ordered by ex-preznit bush on 3/20/2003 AFTER the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, told the Security Council (on 3/7/2003) via written report that the "UN inspections in Iraq worked". Mr. ElBaradei's team conducted 247 inspections at 147 sites and found "no evidence of resumed nuclear activities... nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any related sites". The IAEA report went on to say that "Iraq had not imported uranium since 1990... no longer had a centrifuge program, [and that] Iraq's nuclear capabilities had been effectively dismantled by 1997".

The IAEA answers to both the Security Council and the UN General Assembly. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations and is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security (Source: Wikipedia). A report by the IAEA submitted to the UNSC most certainly qualifies as the "paper trail" that Mr. Hart is sure does not exist.

Two days after ordering the invasion, in a radio address on 3/22/2013, the former preznit said, "our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people".

Given the fact that the weapons inspectors submitted a report 14 days earlier to the UN that said they hadn't found any WMD, is it a reasonable assumption that bush lied? I mentioned the IAEA Report in a comment on Mr. Hart's blog on 5/5/2012. On 7/10/2012 he made the claim that there is no paper trail or evidence and until then we can't talk (i.e. he can't be convinced bush lied). In response I said, "I already gave [you the evidence]. We can't talk because you ignored it and are pretending it doesn't exist".

I think it is VERY clear that Mr. bush lied. The only other excuse would be that he did not believe the inspectors, and that simply does not fly with me AT ALL. A commenter on the Hart blog known as dmarks (or "Dennis Marks" as he is otherwise known) argues that Saddam had been given many chances and had drawn out the process (of complying with the UN resolutions that said he must dispose of his WMD), and that he had fired on UN planes in violation of the cease-fire that ended the first Gulf War. While that is all true, it completely ignores the fact that Saddam was a crazy dictator and such things are to be expected from crazy dictators!

When Saddam violated the various UN resolutions it was entirely up to the UN to determine how those transgressions were to be dealt with. Enforcement of UN resolutions concerning Iraq was NOT the prerogative of the United States or ex-president bush. The fact is that bush made his case for war with Iraq to the UN and the UN rejected it.

When bush ordered the invasion of Iraq he violated Articles 33 and 39 of the UN Charter, which is why Kofi Annan (UN Secretary-general from 1/1/1997 to 12/31/2006) said the war "was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter". This statement by Anon was made during a 9/16/2004 BBC interview while he was still the UN leader (not after his term expired).

But Dennis dismissed Mr. Annon's assessment of the legality of the war. Mr. Marks says Annon's comment provided SOME support for the argument of illegality, but not much... because the Secretary-General's comments were "off the cuff" and a "personal opinion". No Dennis, Mr. Annan's assessment was based on what the UN charter says (the 2 previously mentioned articles). That isn't an opinion, but rather a fact-based conclusion. As for Dennis' contention that the remarks were "off the cuff"; that is complete nonsense, as well as a serious charge of incompetence and/or irresponsibility.

The agenda here is clear, I believe... although they may be excusing and dismissing bush's crimes for slightly different reasons, the fact remains that Hart and Marks are acting as apologists for a president who lied and knew at the time he was lying. Lyndon Johnson prematurely went with some intel that later turned out to be wrong and used it as an excuse to ease us into a war step by step. And he kept it quiet when he found out later the intel was inaccurate.

Also, as alleged by Mr. Hart, he "lied" about the war's progress by misrepresenting it as "going swimmingly well when it wasn't"... as if the bush administration didn't do the exact same thing (by touting the success of the surge that actually wasn't a success).

But neither GWb nor LBJ are war criminals according to Mr. Hart. And that's why he says "at least I'm consistent". Personally I think that's a bunch of bullpoop. I'm consistent, in that I think both wars were very bad ideas, although Vietnam came about due to the irrational Communist paranoia of the time (along with some distorting and dishonesty from our leaders), while Iraq can be attributed to outright blatant lies from despicable and reprehensible individuals in the bush administration who wanted war for political advantage; i.e. bush's desire to be a "war president".

Dennis says, "I'm pretty sure his meltdown over the LBJ issue got him booted out of Will's blog". Mr. Marks is wrong. The Hartster didn't ban me over my LBJ comments (the banning came later, and what was at issue was an entirely different topic).

Also, there was no "meltdown", I only said I wasn't convinced that LBJ lied about the Gulf of Tonkin (initially). Certainly not in the same manner bush lied about WMD. LBJ found out LATER the Gulf of Tonkin info he got was inaccurate, while bush found out BEFORE he invaded that Iraq didn't have WMD.

Both liars, I suppose, but in my mind bush's lie was more egregious. That may be due to me being an adult of voting age during the Iraq war, while LBJ left office before I was born (and the war wrapped up while I was an infant). Also, I'm a Democrat and there is some partisan bias in play here... I'll admit that.

What do you think me-buck? Are the lies that got us into Vietnam comparable to the lies that got us into Iraq? I say they are, but only marginally. But the real issue here (the point of this post, that is) is that both Mr. Marks and Mr. Hart are completely wrong when it comes to the issue of bush lying. The evidence plainly shows that bush told a big fat lie, and in regards to that fact I am the one who is being honest, while the Hart fellow is being dishonest.

So what's up with these irrationals on the ironically titled rAtional nAtion uSA blog who'd rather we all move on because bush isn't president anymore? Do they want us to forget the past and thus be condemned to repeat it?

Further Reading
[1] Study Shows Bush & Co. Lied, 1/23/2008 (PE post by Shaw Kenawe that points to an article from the website The Center for Public Integrity).
[2] Fact Check: No WMDs in Iraq, 2/19/2008 (Regarding people who say buried barrels of degraded chemical or biological weapons qualify, Fact Check says, "we suggest ridicule").
[3] Republicans Still Denying Bush Lied About Iraq by Jonathan Chait. Daily Intelligencer, 2/9/2015 (That "the bush Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent" was the conclusion of Phase two of the Senate Report on Prewar Intelligence on Iraq).
[4] SWTD #312: Iraq War Based On gwb Lie Of "Disarming" Saddam When IAEA Officials Who Were There, On The Ground, Said Iraq Had No WMD, 9/4/2015.

SWTD #154, wDel #26.

Suspension of Disbelief Cubed

Suspension of disbelief is a term coined in 1817 by the poet and aesthetic philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who suggested that if a writer could infuse a "human interest and a semblance of truth" into a fantastic tale, the reader would suspend judgment concerning the implausibility of the narrative. The phrase came to be used more loosely in the later 20th century, often used to imply that the burden was on the reader, rather than the writer, to achieve it -- An excerpt from the Wikipedia entry.

I awoke with a splitting headache. Slowly opening my eyes I took in my surroundings. I appeared to be lying in a hospital bed. Also, to my amazement my friend Jed was sitting in a chair nearby.

"Glad to see you're awake, Dervish", Jed said looking relieved.

"What the hell happened?" I asked. "I thought you were dead".

"Clearly I am not dead", my friend replied. "Let me explain. You were shot by a rogue police officer. But the bullet really only grazed your head and the cop didn't realize it. Probably due to the massive loss of blood".

"But what about you?" I protested, feeling woozy. "I thought you had a heart attack after being tased. I checked your pulse and you didn't have one".

"Yes, that happened", Jed agreed. "But, as for explaining why I didn't have a pulse and appeared to be dead, that is something you are going to have a hard time believing".

"Try me", I shot back.

"Well, you've seen the film Inception starring Leonardo DiCaprio, haven't you?"

"Yes", I replied, not sure where this was going.

"Well", what about The Matrix, have you seen that one? I'm referring to the picture with Keanu Reeves in the lead" Jed explained.

"I don't understand why you're quizzing me on what movies I've seen", I said.

"Just go with me", Jed insisted. "Have you seen it?".

"Yes", I replied, utterly confused at this point.

"OK. What about Independence Day, and Terminator 2? Starring Will Smith and Arnold Schwarzenegger respectively, of course".

"What the hell are you talking about?", I demanded. "What do these movies have to do with you being killed and me almost being killed? I don't understand".

"Just answer the question", Jed said, looking very serious.

I lay there for a little while, staring at Jed. He stared back at me. "Yes, I have seen all those movies", I finally said.

"Think of this as Inception meets The Matrix meets Independence Day meets Terminator 2", he said.

"Think of WHAT as that?", I inquired. Had my friend gone crazy?

"No, I have not gone crazy", Jed replied as if reading my mind. "The situation you are in is like that. It is like Inception in that your dream of the violent sporting event was a dream within a dream. It is like The Matrix in that what you are experiencing right now is not real, but only a virtual reality simulation. It is like Independence Day in that it is aliens (and not intelligent machines) who are using what remains of humanity as batteries to power their machines which are stripping Earth of its natural resources".

"How is it like Terminator 2?" I asked, not believing a single thing Jed had just told me.

"It is like Terminator 2 in that I am a cybernetic robot".

"From the future?" I asked.

"In a way", Jed replied. "The year is not really 2013 as you believe, but actually around a 1000 years later. Anyway, the reason I have no pulse is because I am not human. The tasing merely disrupted my electrical circuits. I only appeared to be dead while my CPU was rebooting".

"Here, feel for a pulse", Jed said, extending his arm.

I felt for a pulse but there was none. "Still not buying this cockamamie story", I said, letting go of Jed's wrist.

Jed withdrew a switchblade from his jacket pocket. "I could use this knife to slice the flesh from my arm and reveal my robotic endoskeleton", Jed said. "Although I would rather not damage myself in that manner".

Still I did not quite believe the line of BS Jed was feeding me, but clearly something strange was going on. "So why did you scream at me and then cry hysterically when the cop said he was going to give you a ticket?" I asked, sure I had finally stumped him.

"It's like Star Trek Generations. You know, the film where they replaced Kirk and crew with Picard and the cast of the Next Generation series. You've seen it, right?", Jed asked.

"Actually, I just caught it on TV recently", I admitted.

"Well, then you should recall one of the subplots had to do with the android character Data and his emotion chip. I too have an emotion chip. The reason for my chaotic emotions is because this chip was infected with a virus. But don't worry, the virus has been dealt with".

"Sure", I agreed, certain my friend had flipped his lid. Perhaps we had both flipped our lids and were in the psych ward. I wasn't able to ponder just what was going on for long though, as voices in the hall outside the room distracted me.

"This way officer. The suspect is in this room", a female voice in the hall outside said.

"Oops. it's too late", Jed said. And then he disintegrated in a blinding flash, leaving not even ashes behind.

"What the frick!" I exclaimed in astonishment. But I did not have time to ponder this new development either, as just then a familiar officer of the law entered the room.

"That's the violent crack dealer who attacked me", the familiar cop said to a second uniformed officer who entered the room alongside him.

"Wait a minute, that isn't true at all", I complained, directing my disagreement toward the second officer. But I could protest my innocence no further, as the room suddenly started spinning. He needs another transfusion, a nurse that had entered the room behind the two cops said. She approached the bed and inserted an IV in my arm. In a few seconds I was feeling very drowsy.

"This will put him under so that he may be transported to the prison hospital", was the last thing I heard the nurse say before I lost consciousness.

 swtd-153. ti-3.  Previous. Next.

Don't Tase Me To Death Officer

"Don't tase me, bro" is an utterance emitted by University of Florida student Andrew Meyer on the evening of September 17, 2007 in efforts to ward off the vicious bite of a police taser after he was detained for getting uppity at a forum with U.S. Senator John Kerry -- An entry from the Urban Dictionary, which is "a Web-based dictionary of slang words and phrases".

My friend Jed wouldn't stop hollering at me. It was a waste of money to pay for me to attend a sporting event that I slept through. How dare I? he demanded to know. I apologized but reminded him that I did not like sport and had warned him beforehand that I thought it was boring. But my friend continued to complain the entire ride home.

"What are you, gay?" Jed asked.

"No, but that is a homophobic comment if ever I heard one", I retorted.

"I've had it with you", Jed suddenly yelled as he slammed on the breaks. "Get the hell out", he ordered with a stern face.

"No way", I replied. "We're in the middle of nowhere. I'm not going anywhere. You're taking me home".

Then my friend began screaming loudly. Clearly he had lost it. I sat there while Jed screamed until he was red in the face. Exhausted, he finally relented.

"I'm not a homophobe", he finally said after several minutes of silence. Just then a siren blared and a pair of flashing red lights appeared in the rear view mirror. "Great, the cops" Jed muttered. A few moments later there was a tap on the driver's side window. Jed rolled it down and asked, "what seems to be the trouble, officer"?

"You're not allowed to pull over here unless there is an emergency", the cop informed my friend.

"What?" Jed asked, clearly confused.

"There are signs all along this section of the highway", the officer explained. "If there is no emergency I ask that you please be on your way", the officer instructed.

Jed fumbled for his keys. "Certainly officer. I apologize for the mistake. I did not see the signs", Jed sputtered, clearly worried he might get a ticket.

"Hold up", the officer instructed. "I think I'm going to give you a ticket after all", he added, pulling out his ticket clipboard.

"It was an honest mistake", Jed protested. "Please don't give me a ticket". Suddenly Jed began to cry. He tried to stifle his sobs but was unsuccessful. Soon he was bawling like a little baby.

"What's with this bullsh*t?" the officer growled. "It would be one thing if you were a beautiful chick, but a dude crying is going to get no sympathy from me. Forget the ticket, I'm going to arrest you and have your car impounded", the officer shouted (in order to be heard over the increasing loud wailing emanating from my friend).

"Stop crying and get out of the vehicle before I'm forced to tase you", the officer yelled.

"No", Jed said, calming down a little. "It was an honest mistake and you have no cause to arrest me", he defiantly proclaimed.

"That's it", the officer decided, pulling out his taser and taking aim. Then he depressed the trigger and a projectile with a thin wire attached shot out and pierced Jed's flesh. Jed screamed in agony as a jolt of electricity coursed through his body. The cop removed his finger from the trigger and Jed's head slumped forward. Seemingly he was unconscious.

"Stop faking unconsciousness and exit the vehicle", the cop screamed.

Jed did not respond. I grabbed hold of his wrist and felt for a pulse, but there was none. "He needs CPR", I shouted.

The officer opened the door and dragged Jed's limp body from the vehicle, depositing him roughly on the pavement. "M-Fer, I think you're right" the officer remarked, his face ashen.

Quickly the lawman began CPR, depressing Jed's chest and alternately blowing air into his mouth. But it did not work. Jed was dead from an apparent heart attack.

"Jesus H. Christ, what a pu*sy" the angry cop bellowed, jumping to his feet and kicking Jed violently in the gut. It was probably a half-dozen more kicks to the belly before officer friendly finally stopped.

"Violent crack dealers", he suddenly said.

"What?" I asked.

"You and your friend", the officer explained, "are violent crack dealers who attacked me when I pulled you over. I had no choice but to defend myself". Then he pulled his gun and took aim directly at my chest. "Bang, you're dead", he shouted, firing.

I felt myself falling, then my head struck the concrete and everything went black.



 swtd-152. ti-2.  Previous. Next.

Skepticism Of Policies That Harm The Wealthy Elites But Acceptance Of Policies That Further Enrich Them

...globalization is more of a boon to the members of the global elite than it is to the average Jose ~ Dani Rodrik (dob 8/14/1957) Professor of International Political Economy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government; a quote from his book The Globalization Paradox, which argues "that when the social arrangements of democracies inevitably clash with the international demands of globalization, national priorities should take precedence".

A global climate change denier once quoted science fiction writer Michael Crichton, who said, "the greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with consensus". In other words, the very fact that 90 percent of climate change scientists agree that global warming could cause us some major problems in the future is evidence that these "warmists" are probably wrong. Because those who break with consensus are, more often than not, the ones who end up being right (and that is the case with global climate change. It is mostly "alarmism").

Except when those critical thinkers in the minority are breaking with a "consensus" that benefits the wealthy elites, apparently. Then they are wrong. I'm referring to economists who disagree that "removing trade restrictions invariably helps some firms and people and hurts others but with a positive net benefit for the country as a whole". Willis Hart agrees wholeheartedly with the free traders, even though they are in the majority.

When I presented Mr. William H. Hart with the names (and words) of a few economists who break with consensus and say free trade is problematic, he said, "90% of economists support free trade, wd. It's you who have the minority position on this one".

OK, I get it... when he has the minority opinion (regarding global warming), he's right, because the thinkers he cites "are great precisely because they broke with consensus", but when I'm the one with the minority opinion it proves how wrong I am! That works out quite nicely for Mr. Hart. Also, notice how both these positions (global warming: no big deal and free trade: awesome) benefit the wealthy elites?

BTW, for anyone who might point out that the reverse is true... that I say I'm right on global warming (because the majority of climate scientists agree with me) and right on free trade because I'm with those who are breaking with consensus... I have to point out that I'm only making the first argument and not the later one. The great thinkers who broke with consensus and were right are in the minority. Most often scientific progress is made by researchers who build on the accomplishments of those who came before them. Also, protectionism is what made the US a manufacturing powerhouse. Since we broke with (what used to be the) consensus we've lost millions of manufacturing jobs.

When Mr. Hart breaks with consensus and takes the position that those concerned about the possible negative effects of global warming are "alarmists" and we shouldn't do anything to address the problem because it is actually not a big deal... his position protects the profits of polluters and Big Oil. And when he adheres to the consensus that says free trade is a net positive... his position protects the profits of large corporations who profit by offshoring American jobs to low wage countries. Do you think this is just a coincidence?

I say it is not a coincidence that in each instance Mr. Hart takes the position that best serves the wealthy elites, just as the Conservatives that Mr. Hart insists he is not one of do. Mr. Hart asserts he is a "Moderate" yet he always comes down on the side of the plutocrats and in opposition to policies that would benefit working people. His May 12 post, "Top Five Favorite Newport Mansions, being is just another example of how this individual exhibits behavior typical of a Conservative... behavior that could be called "wealthy worship".

If you have mega-bucks Mr. Hart assumes you worked hard and busted your ass to earn that dough... and the government should keep it's "stealing" (aka taxing) of what's yours to an absolute minimum. If you're a poor shlub, on the other hand, you probably have only yourself to blame for your lot in life. You should have worked harder, not had kids at an early age, not smoked, or some other issue that's entirely your problem and not due in any manner to greedy "job creators" taking advantage of you. This is what is known as "blaming the victim", and is a tactic Conservatives have perfected. It is also a tactic Mr. Hart frequently employs.

The bottom line is that we can do something about global climate change (such as promoting a green jobs economy that will actually be a boon for our economy)... and we can do something about the job-destroying free trade policies being pushed by the corporatists (in both parties, but mostly in the "R" party) who don't want to pay American workers fair wages (by using tariffs and our tax code to encourage corporations to bring jobs back to the US)... but in both instances it will mean slightly less profit for the wealthy elites. Apparently people like Willis Hart find this prospect to horrible to contemplate. That, or he's buying into the spin put out by the plutocrats that we'll all benefit if we do it their way.

Also, the Hartster despises green energy and has written dozens of posts on how terrible it is. Maybe this explains why Mr. Hart hates the former Green Jobs "czar" almost a lot less than dmarks (although he still dislikes him, he just falls short of believing Mr. Jones smiles when he thinks of getting into government and starting a genocide. probably). Regarding Van Jones (an individual I greatly admire) the Hart guy says, "he's a real shit, crony capitalist, 9/11 Truther". Although none of that is even remotely true.

In summary what he have here is a deluded individual who believes... global climate change: BFD, green energy: Lucifer-endorsed, free trade: manna from heaven for American consumers, and the wealthy: job creators we should all worship er admire. Wow, huh? Could one person possibly be any more "Moderate"? What say you me-buck?

SWTD #151, wDel #25.

Benghazi Irrationality

The rational mind of man is a shallow thing, a shore upon a continent of the irrational, wherein thin colonies of reason have settled amid a savage world ~ Wilford O. Cross, a quote from Prologue to Ethics.

The following statement is from the self-proclaimed "Moderate" Mr. Willis V. Hart (whom I have covered on this blog previously) via the Libertarian rAtional nAtion website...

Willis Hart: This was all about the administration protecting Mr. Obama's narrative (right before the election, no less) that Al-Qaeda was on the run and all that crap... We were lied to... and I don't particularly like being lied to whether it's Dick Cheney or Obama. This was a bald-faced lie of a story line that they didn't pawn on us once or twice but dozens of times and for over 2 solid weeks. And it was absurd, a spontaneous eruption... (condensed from two of Mr. Hart's comments).

But it wasn't Obama who lied (or authored the talking points that contained the lie, at least), not according to the NYT's David Brooks, who, on the 5/12/2013 airing of "Meet the Press" shared his assessment of how the talking points were formulated (and by whom) in the aftermath of Benghazi...

David Brooks: My reading of the evidence is a very terrible event happened at a CIA facility, they went into intense blame-shifting mode, trying to shift responsibility onto the State department, onto anywhere else, and the state department pushed back. ... Out of that bureaucratic struggle, all the talking points were reduced to mush and then politics was inserted into it.

So, was it the Obama Administration who wanted to "protect their narrative" of "Al-Qaeda on the run" and therefore lied to us, or is David Brooks right about this "narrative" being constructed by the CIA in an attempt to cover their ass? And why did former Dick Cheney aid at State Victoria Nuland ask for the removal of references to Al-Qaeda and the CIA's warnings about the dangers to US diplomats in Libya? (more on that later).

Brook's take on Benghazi is interesting because Mr. Hart is a huge fan. On 8/29/2012 Willis composed a commentary titled "On David Brooks", in which he said...

Willis Hart: Liberals think that he's a conservative. Conservatives think that he's a liberal. Yeah, you better believe that I can identify with him.

Willis identifies with him because he thinks Brooks is a "Moderate" like him. Willis' "Moderate" position on Benghazi is that he does not like being lied to "whether it's Dick Cheney or Obama". But Willis' hero David Brooks doesn't think President Obama lied. So where does this leave Mr. Hart, I wonder? "Respectfully" disagreeing, I'd guess. Or (more likely) he'd argue what Brooks said does not indicate President Obama didn't lie.

Also, in regards to Brooks and Hart being fellow Moderates... Mr. Brooks, prior to his NYT gig, "worked as reporter and later op-ed editor for The Wall Street Journal [and] as senior editor at The Weekly Standard from its inception". The Weekly Standard "is an American neoConservative opinion magazine [whose] founding publisher [is] News Corporation [Rupert Murdoch/Fox Nooz]".

OK, got it. Willis identifies with David Brooks because he perceives him to be a Moderate like (he perceives) himself to be a Moderate. But David Brooks isn't a Moderate. Would a "Moderate" work at the neoConservative Weekly Standard? What's odd here is that the Hartster does not identify as neoConservative (he has spoken against the neoCons). While he was gung-ho in his support for bush's Afghanistan invasion, he says he did not support the occupation and nation-building in Afghanistan, or the invasion of Iraq.

But David Brooks is a neoCon (or leaned in that direction while employed by the Weekly Standard, and, since leaving that publication, soured on neoConservatism. I'm not sure.)...

Wikipedia: ...before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Brooks argued forcefully for American military intervention, echoing the belief of commentators and political figures that American and British forces would be welcomed as liberators. [However] In the spring of 2004, some of his opinion pieces suggested he had tempered his earlier optimism about the war. [Also] Brooks' public writing about the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is similar to those by neoConservatives, according to a Salon article by Glenn Greenwald, that labels Brooks as a neoConservative.

My conclusions are that [1] The Obama Administration may have been aware that the CIA/State talking points were not entirely accurate, but for political reasons decided to go with them until the investigation revealed otherwise. [2] It's Mr. Hart's "Moderation" that causes him to go with the Conservative talking points on this and label this "lying", and [3] Mr. Hart is not that Moderate. In fact, I think it is quite appropriate that he is a contributor over at the Libertarian rAtional nAtion blog.

Now, back to the former Dick Cheney aide who worked at State and asked "for the removal of references to Al-Qaeda and the CIA's warnings about the dangers to US diplomats in Libya". The State department spokesperson being referred to is Victoria Nuland, and regarding her "Republican party pedigree" Salon says...

Salon's Alex Seitz-Wald: Nuland is married to Washington Post columnist and neoConservative historian Robert Kagan, who helped sell the case for the Iraq War, advised both Mitt Romney and John McCain's presidential campaigns, and co-founded the Project for a New American Century think tank with Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol...

So she's a former Cheney aid with a Republican pedigree AND there is also a neoCon connection? Could this possibly be sabotage, in that Nuland purposefully corrupted the talking points so the Republicans could later claim a cover-up? I'm thinking probably no... but this is a rather odd coincidence, to say the least.

The Washington Post (the same paper Nuland's husband works for) says Nuland is the one who, "after reading the first draft of the State Department talking points that stated the incident was a coordinated terrorist attack", pushed for the revisions because she worried members of Congress [might] "beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings". She asked, "why would we want to seed the Hill?".

Does this revelation take at least some of the wind out of the sails of those (like Hart) who are absolutely convinced this was an Obama administration conspiracy to lie to the American people in order to sustain their "narrative"? Or do the irrationals on Mr. Nation's blog have their own agenda? I think the following exchange suggests they do...

Jersey McJones: If there was some misinformation intentionally trotted out to the public... then there should be reasonable consequences. But this issue is not worth a snotty rag compared to the horror the last administration perpetrated while the cons sat silent. (5/13/2013 AT 01:42:00 AM EDT). rAtional nAtion: GWB was a poor President overall IMNHO and did more damage to conservatism than perhaps any prior conservative President. Having said this [Jersey McJones] seems to be stuck in time. But I suppose it is understandable. (5/13/2013 AT 09:20:00 PM EDT).

Yea, I understand why Irrational wants to sweep bush's war crimes and lies about WMD that were not found under the rug. If bush had been prosecuted (as he should have been) it would have been extremely damaging for the Republican brand. Not that Mr. Nation is ever going to get the Libertarian government he wants, but he surely does not want to see things swing in the other direction (toward the Democrats). He doesn't want Hillary (or some other Democrat) to win the presidency in 2016. Which is why he's on board with Willis in using Benghazi to damage Obama and Hillary.

Dictionary.com defines irrational as, [1] without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason; [2] without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment; [3] not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical", and that is how I view Mr. Hart's outrage over the president's supposed Benghazi "lies". It is very irrational to expect politicians to not act to protect themselves politically. Yet he has no outrage at all when it comes to the Republicans who are using this to ATTACK the Obama administration for political reasons.

It is the Republican lies for which there is FAR greater reason to be outraged, IMO. The truth came out in short order (the Benghazi attack was not a result of a spontaneous attack sparked by the "Innocence of Muslims" video). Obama still would have won the election. Also, nobody died because "the talking points were reduced to mush" (as David Brooks put it)... unlike when bush lied about WMD in Iraq. Mr. Hart isn't outraged about that at all. Quite the contrary, he has authored multiple posts defending bush lying about WMDs, which Willis says there is no evidence of!

When I said, "bush lied when he said we needed to invade Iraq to disarm it... even though all the evidence said Iraq was already disarmed", the Hartster's response was complete denial...

Willis Hart: You gave me no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public... No testimony. No paper trail. Zero (7/10/2012).

There is "no evidence" bush lied about WMD? Sure. The Downing Street Memo isn't evidence. The Senate Intelligence Committee report that found the bush administration "deliberately misled the American public about Saddam's relationship with al Qaeda and led the nation to war on false premises"... that isn't evidence either.

NO outrage over bush's NARRATIVE that Iraq had WMD and needed to be disarmed, just willful ignorance... but plenty of outrage over Obama's "bald-faced lie"? Willis did mention Dick Cheney lying, but about what I don't know. I tried to comment on the Irrational blog but it appears as though the Irrational fellow won't be publishing my comment. Not that it would matter, because ever since Willis banned me from his blog he refuses to acknowledge any words from me on any site we may both happen to comment on.

SWTD #150, wDel #24.

Assessing the Climate Change Skeptics

The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were ~ John F. Kennedy (5/29/1917 to 11/22/1963) the 35th President of the United States, serving from 1961 until his death in 1963.

According to climate change skeptic Willis Hart of the blog Contra O'Reilly I am a moron who knows absolutely nothing about climatology. Why the insult (followed by a semi-factual statement)? Because, according to him, I referred to the "reasoned and well thought out" works of climate change skeptics Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, William Happer, And Freeman Dyson as "stupidity".

To this I say... no, sorry, you are wrong. What I said was that I think the notion that the majority of the world's climate scientists are liars who are faking their research is stupidity (Willis has asserted numerous times that the research is being faked, the "climateagate" emails being proof of that).

But do I have enough knowledge of climatology to outright declare that the scholarly works of the climate change denying scientists Willis admires are all "stupidity"? I will admit that I do not (which is why I didn't). However, if one does actually investigate the people he names, you'll find that there are problems to be found. For one, not all of these people are climate scientists. For another, at least one has ties to big oil...

Richard Lindzen: Atmospheric physicist and Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Wikipedia says, "he believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming". However, "most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen's theory discredited".

Also, according to SourceWatch, "Lindzen charged oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus, was underwritten by OPEC". Not only that, but he was a witness for the tobacco companies when they were denying a link between smoking and cancer!

Roy Spencer: Climatologist and principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Wikipedia notes that "Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting".

OK, so we've established that he's cuckoo - and I say that as a person who identifies as Christian. Seriously, a religious belief that God is going to protect us from global warming does not cut the mustard as real science. I'm surprised Mr. Hart cites him. The Hartster must be unaware of his religious views and how they have influenced his scientific ones.

Also, SourceWatch (in regards to Spencer) says, "there are several flaws in [Spencer's] methods... inconsistent initial conditions [and] failure to use the appropriate data... All of these flaws pushed his model to produce a lower climate sensitivity estimate. When the flaws are corrected, the model estimates climate sensitivities of at least 3°C, which is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) central estimate".

John Christy: Climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. According to Wikipedia he is "a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels". Skeptical Science says, "The foundation of Dr. Christy's arguments are that despite over four decades of climate science research, we still do not understand the workings of the global climate much better than we did in 1970, and that as a result, we are jumping to conclusions in blaming recent global warming on human activities. However, contrary to Dr. Christy's uncertainty exaggerations, the human influence on the recent global warming is one of the aspects which climate scientists are most certain about".

William Happer: American physicist who has specialized in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy. He is not a climate scientist. Wikipedia says, "in February 2009 Happer testified before the U.S. Congress, I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind, for among other reasons because of its beneficial effects on plant growth".

Skeptical Science disagrees with the "CO2 is plant food and thus good" theory, noting, "CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come from? In many places rainwater is not sufficient for current agriculture and the aquifers they rely on are running dry throughout the Earth".

Freeman Dyson: Theoretical physicist and mathematician, but not a climate scientist. Regarding Freeman, Wikipedia notes that "Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that one of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas".

So what's the problem? Dyson says, "my objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, ABOUT WHICH I DO NOT KNOW MUCH, but it's rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have..."

That wraps it up in regards to the people whose works Willis claims I referred to as stupidity... even though I didn't. However, now that I've done some research I have reconsidered. While I'm sure these are all extremely intelligent men (all smarter than I), I must conclude that there is definitely some stupidity within the works of these skeptics. Perhaps Willis is correct in labeling me a moron? What do you think me-buck?

Update 8/10/2015: This commentary is included on a list of "all blog posts mentioning Freeman Dyson relating to Climate Change" on the site The Carbon Capture Report, which "is one of the world's premiere sources of daily news and public perception reports of carbon capture and sequestration, climate change, and the energy sector around the world, 365 days a year".

SWTD #149, wDel #23.

Angry John McCain Shameful Benghazi Lies Due To Republican Sore Loserness

The biases the media has are much bigger than conservative or liberal. They're about getting ratings, about making money, about doing stories that are easy to cover ~ Al Franken the junior Senator from Minnesota, serving since 2009. Prior to serving in the Senate, he was an acclaimed writer and performer for the popular television show Saturday Night Live. After SNL Franken acted in TV and movies, hosted a nationally syndicated political radio talk show and authored six books.

I've previously given my take on an article by Sean Hannity butt kisser Dylan Stableford of Yahoo! News, and this is going to be another one. Although, I did not notice that Mr. Stableford was the author until I finished reading. I was not all that surprised, however, as it gives just the Republican perspective on the Benghazi so-called cover-up. In his Republican-version-of-events-only article Stableford reports on what former (and still angry about losing) presidential contender John McCain has to say dissemble about the tragic events that took place in Benghazi.

Following are some excerpts from the Stableford story (which concerns how the Republicans are spinning Benghazi for political advantage Democrats are covering up their lying after Benghazi so they wouldn't lose the presidential election) and my commentary regarding said excerpts...

Dylan Stableford Reports: Sen. John McCain continued his criticism of the White House's handling of the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, calling for a select committee to investigate what he called the Obama administration's "cover-up".

My Commentary: There was no cover-up. There have already been 3 investigations! Is that not enough to get all the facts out? Answer - YES it is! The only reason to drag this out further is for political advantage. McCain (along with all the other Republicans) want to use this for political advantage in the 2014 midterms and for political advantage in 2015 if Hillary Clinton decides to run.

DS Reports: McCain [says] "We are in the midst of a presidential campaign. The narrative by the Obama campaign is that bin Laden is dead, that al Qaeda is on the run, not to worry about anything, and here comes this attack on Benghazi.

My Commentary: Obama did get bin Laden. Clearly that chafes McCain's hide - and he realizes that YES, it did help Obama in the election - and that really makes McCain mad, as he remembers it was the bush financial crisis that helped Obama defeat him. McCain just can't believe Obama's luck. And this time Obama stole the mantle of "strong on national security" from the Republicans! No wonder McCain is so enraged.

But, yes, it appears as though the Obama administration did downplay the Benghazi attack for political reasons. However, as we all know, the Republicans would have used did use Benghazi to try and help Mitt Romney win. So what if the Obama administration downplayed the events at Benghazi for political reasons to head off an attack by the Republicans done for political reasons? It turned out to be the wrong decision, but I don't blame them too much for their (totally justified) concern that Republicans would play dirty. And, MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, they are playing very dirty.

DS Reports: James Inhofe suggested President Obama could be impeached for his role in the case [saying] "of all the great cover-ups in history - we're talking about the Pentagon Papers, the Iran-Contra, Watergate [blah, blah, blah]".

My Commentary: This bullplop from Inhofe is about as credible as his "global warming is a hoax" conspiracy theories. The voters of Oklahoma should be embarrassed that they've been sending this nut back to Congress since 1987!

DS Reports: "The president didn't call it an act of terror... In fact, two weeks later, before the U.N., he was talking about hateful videos and spontaneous demonstrations. What he did say the day after was he condemned acts of terrorism, but then that night... and throughout the next two weeks, he kept saying that it was caused by a spontaneous demonstration sparked by a hateful video. [blah, blah, blah, "cover-up"]. McCain said he'd like to see former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton... testify again.

My Commentary: Translation... I'm so mad that Obama kicked my ass in 2012! Remember when I said I'd follow bin Laden to the gates of hell? That should have been ME that killed him. Obama stole the mantle of national security from the Republicans and we want it back. We'll go on and on about this fake "cover-up" for as long as it takes. I missed my turn, and Hillary sure as hell isn't going to get another shot on my watch!

Remember when McCain skipped a hearing on Benghazi (11/14/2012) to hold a press conference expressing his outrage over Benghazi? I think that proves his "outrage" is political in nature, and has nothing to do with the Americans who died (including ambassador Christopher Stevens). This is about McCain being a sore loser. What he's outraged about is that Obama won a first term (thumping him) and then a second (thumping Romney).

Also, as reported by Think Progress, Obama did refer to Benghazi as an act of terror. Not just in that Rose Garden speech, but multiple times after that.

Stableford also mentions that "McCain did not invoke the i-word [impeachment], although he still strongly believes that "we need a select committee". No, we don't. Three hearings are more than enough. Obviously the Republicans think they can just keep holding hearings until they get the result they want. But McCain knows Obama isn't going to be impeached (he's smarter than Inhofe in that regard)... he just wants to inflict as much damage on Obama as he possibly can.

Finally, in regards to the author of the referenced article... good job getting the Republican talking points out on this Dylan! Your article was very "fair and balanced" in that, NOT ONCE, did you mention how the Democrats are responding to these bogus "cover-up" charges. Instead he lets McCain and Inhofe's allegations go unchallenged.

ABC News does a slightly better job (thanks "Liberal Media") by including a quote from the Democratic Senator of Rhode Island, Jack Reed, who said "absolutely not" to the cover-up allegation; then blamed all the revising of the talking points on "efforts to form a consensus document that avoided all of the difficult issues"... which does NOT amount to any kind of cover-up, just a careful consideration of what was said before an investigation had even begun (with the results of the upcoming presidential election in mind... sure).

Dylan concludes with a quote from McCain about maybe not impeaching Obama... McCain said, "I don't know what level of scandal this rises to". Then McCain again calls for a "select committee" because "the American people deserve it". Let me guess... "Select" means the Republicans select the members who will conclude there was a cover-up? And by "deserve" he means the American people deserved a Republican in the White House, but in consolation they'll settle for exacting revenge on Obama for stealing the mantle of national security from the Republicans AND mopping the floor with the last two candidates they ran for president?

SWTD #148

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.