On The South, AKA the "Stupid States", Voting Republican

The question of why poor people vote Republican is not simply an issue of income but primarily race and partly region and gender. Poor people may be more likely to vote Democrat; poor white people are not ~ Gary Younge writting for The Guardian in a 10/29/2012 article, "Working class voters: why America's poor are willing to vote Republican".

The following is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 3/13/2012, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Have Right to Work laws made people in the Southern states stupid? Thom answers a caller's question.

Caller: I was wondering, what divides us intellectually from Mississippi and Alabama? Why are those states deemed as being the "stupid states"?

Thom: A lot of it has to do with the history of labor. During the industrialization of the United States, in the 1920s through the 40s... The Wagner Act (National Labor Relations Act or NLRA) was passed in 1935 and Union shops started, and the South started unionizing just like the North did. Although most of the industrial activity was still in the North. The South was still largely agricultural, although there was a lot of textile work going on in the south... a lot of clothing being made. And people were forming unions.

Then, in 1946 the Republicans took both the House and Senate for the first time since the crash of 1929. They only held the House for 2 years... they lost the House for over 30 years - they didn't get it back until the year Newt swept the House in 1994. So, during that 2 years they did a lot of damage.

Harry Truman proposed a bill that would give everyone in American free health care. It was Medicare Part E, basically... they shot that down. They then passed a bill called the Taft-Hartley Act (Labor–Management Relations Act) which said that individual states could opt out of the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act [Congress overrode Truman's veto]. If a majority of people in a workplace voted for a union, that was fine, but not everybody had to participate in that union. Which basically makes it real easy for employers to bust unions, and radically reduces the benefits, both to the union and the union employees, of having a union.

The Southern states were the first to jump on this bandwagon and they all became right-to-work-for-less states, very, very quickly. And so, since the 40s they've had lower wages... in the average right-to-work-for-less state people make 5 thousand dollars a year less than they do in a free bargaining state. They are also twice as likely to die on the job.

Now we're almost 3 generations away from this, and I would say that's the largest single reason. Because there was less [tax] revenue [because workers were earning less], there was less money for education and people were stuck in cyclical poverty. It's a genuine tragedy.

END Thom Hartman Program excerpt. If you are a subscriber to the Thom Hartmann program podcast, the location of this segment of audio can be found at 17:50 to 21:21 of Hour 2 on Tuesday March 13, 2012.

Keeping wages low for average workers is ABSOLUTELY the reason why the south is essentially a solid, grim block of poverty. I say this in agreement with a recent post on the excellent blog "Progressive Eruptions", a blog where the proprietor, Shaw Kenawe pointed out the following...

...the south is a solid bloc of conservative voting. This is what southern conservative leaders have done for the citizens who vote against their best interests by keeping those conservatives in office. And here is the result of their failed conservative policies. Nothing but misery has "trickled down" to these southern states. (H/T to Progressive Eruptions. Posted on 7/3/2014 at 7:25am).

And why is the South solidly Republican? The answer is slavery and the Civil Rights legislation signed by LBJ in 1964, previous to which it was the Democratic Party that supported Slavery and racism. But that all changed when Democrats flipped to support to equality and Republicans (several years later) took up the mantle of White racism in order to win the South.

Wikipedia, Solid South: ...beginning in the 1960s, Southern support for the Democratic Party started to decline given its national leaders' support of the civil rights movement, including school integration. The Republican Party began to make new gains in the South, building on other cultural conflicts as well. In 1968, President Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy is credited with allowing either the Republicans or Southern Democrat George Wallace's independent campaign to keep much of the South out of the Democratic column at the presidential level. The South continued to send an overwhelmingly Democratic delegation to Congress until the Republican Revolution of 1994. Today, the South is considered a Republican stronghold at all levels above the local level, with Republicans holding majorities in every state except Arkansas and Kentucky after 2010. Political experts have often cited a southernization of politics following the fall of the Solid South.

The South's history of slavery and racism and Republican Party's desire to pander to these voters is why the South is today solidly for the GOP. And the South is poorer than the rest of the nation due to the Republican Party being the party of the wealthy and big business...

From a business perspective... the loyalties of the parties did not really switch. ...the Republicans remain, throughout, the party of bigger businesses; it's just that in the earlier era bigger businesses want bigger government and in the later era they don't. ...earlier on, businesses needed things that only a bigger government could provide, such as infrastructure development, a currency and tariffs. Once these things were in place, a small, hands-off government became better for business. (excerpt from a 6/14/2014 post from the Soadhead blog "Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms". Authorship attributed to "Sharon" with quotations from Eric Rauchway, a professor of American history at the University of California, Davis).

So, the flipped platforms referred to in blog excerpt above is in reference to support for Big Government. The Republicans used to support Big Government and now they do not. But they obviously ALSO flipped on the issue of support for African Americans, going from supporting ending slavery to opposing equality/civil rights legislation.

And this is the same Republican Party that began as a reform party that initially opposed slavery. But the priority of pandering to the wealthy won out and the decision was made (by Nixon) that the racist White vote was needed in order to win elections, which is why the Republicans and Democrats flipped positions on the issue of racism; after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Legislation of 1964 the GOP became the new home for America's racists.

And the South is decidedly poorer and dumber as a result. Poorer because big business does not want to pay as low of a wage as possible to workers, and with Republicans in control, they get what they want (Right-to-work legislation). Dumber because, as research has shown, poverty makes people less intelligent.

Image Description: This map shows U.S. poverty rates, which are highest in the south. Red-shaded states indicate poverty rates between 17.9 and 22.8 percent. Orange is 15,9-17.8 percent. Light orange indicates 12.2-15.8 percent, and yellow indicates 9-12.1 percent (source: These Nine Maps Show How The GOP is Destroying Southern States by John Prager from Americans Against The Tea Party, 3/6/2014).

SWTD #264

The Irrational Hypocrite Strikes Again; Breaks Own Rule & Discusses "Old Bones"

Because hypocrisy stinks in the nostrils one is likely to rate it as a more powerful agent for destruction than it is ~ Rebecca West (12/21/1892 to 3/15/1983) a British author, journalist, literary critic and travel writer. A prolific, protean author who wrote in many genres, West was committed to feminist and liberal principles.

A blogger who (ironically?) calls himself rAtional nAtion has a STRICT policy against discussing what he calls "old bones". What is in the past should stay in the past, given that it is over and done with and we can therefore do nothing about it. Discussion on said topic is pointless.

Or that might be one rationale for someone to call a topic "old bones" and chastise those who bring it up. Or it might be a defense mechanism designed to prevent conversation on a topic the objector does not like. In the case of the "rational" individual that topic is any criticism of former preznit bush and his illegal wars launched while our nation was in shock after 9-11. A shock the former criminal administration used to steal from the American people via war profiteering.

I recently brought this up on the rAtional oNe's blog and was immediately shot down. My comment and the "rational" response as follows...

Dervish Sanders: The Bush Family profited greatly as a result of the war with Iraq. Yeah, I know that's an "old bone" according to RN and one other who comments here, but why, simply because the former prez is no longer prez should no one be outraged by this? (6/28/2914 AT 01:30:00 PM EDT). "rAtional" nAtion uSA: It is old bones and GWB is not a war criminal which I know you have proffered in the past. Having said that O I have no problem putting into motion such actions that would make that impossible in the future. (6/28/2014 AT 02:20:00 PM EDT).

Huh. Mr. Nation has "no problem putting into motion such actions that would make that impossible in the future". But why would Congress do this? Given that the rAtional oNe wishes everyone to not discuss any transgressions of the bush administration, which involves any discussion of war profiteering that took place. Why put anything into place when there is no reason (no reason that we're discussing, in any case).

Those who don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Perhaps that is what the rAtional oNe desires? Who knows. Also, who brought up bush's war crimes? I didn't mention them. I didn't use the term "war criminal" in any case, although war profiteering might be considered a war crime. I'm not sure. Surely I would deem it to be highly immoral.

But whatever immoralities or war crimes those in the former bush administration might have indulged in are "old bones" and thus not worthy of discussion. Which is why you'll NEVER see the rAtional oNe mention them, except to chide anyone who might do something as pointless as bring up anything that might have anything to do with such things.

Nope. No way Mr. Nation would write and submit a comment like this one...

"rAtional" nAtion uSA: GWB, elected to office twice. Playing to the fears and reality of 9/11 he was able to advance rather idiotic agenda, Afghanistan excepted of course. Although he. couldn't even get the job done there cause he had to turn to Iraq. Big scare over phantom WMD and all. Yep, historians are going to have a blast with the dude's legacy down the road. Oh, did I mention his poor (very) economic and fiscal policies? I hate say it, but GWB indeed managed to screw up his wet dream. (7/1/2014 AT 7:58pm).

But this is a genuine comment (from the blog Contra O'Reilly). The rAtional oNe actually wrote it. I wonder if he "hates to say it" because it makes him a hypocrite? No, that couldn't be it. And he's largely correct, excepting Afghanistan, of course (both wars were illegal). But this is ALL "old bones", as the rAtional individual would say. Discussion of this nature is strictly verboten. On his blog as well as on ANY blog that this rAtional dude might view... and that includes MY OWN BLOG!

On 9/28/2013 I authored a post for this blog in which I offered my thoughts on a discussion with one of the liars who sold us the Iraq war. The commentary was my response to an airing of the Thom Hartmann radio program in which Thom interviewed bush war criminal Douglas Feith.

In response to this commentary Mr. Nation scolded me due to my foolishness in bringing up a topic that nobody cares about.

"rAtional" nAtion uSA: Do you think Mr. Sanders that anyone is concerned with this any longer other than yourself? Inquiring minds want to know. (10/01/2013 AT 10:17pm).

Ok, if nobody cares, why did this supposed rAtional person author a comment on Willis Hart's "Contra O'Reilly" in which he brought up "old bones" like bush exploiting the fear that gripped the nation following 9/11? SURELY the rAtional oNe would not let me get away with such a comment... on his blog or on any blog where he comments. Not even on my own blog. "Old bones" would, withOUT a doubt, be a phrase included in a reply Mr. Nation would be sure to submit if he saw me make such a comment.

And if the rAtional gUy reads this... he KNOWS I speak the truth. Also, in regards to the "phantom WMD", I know another commenter who would object to that narrative. That person wouldn't be me, of course, but another that frequents the "rAtional" blog. This is a person who is absolutely convinced that Saddam had WMD and the invasion NEEDED to happen in order to "disarm" him. This fool even goes so far as to claim that it wasn't bush who started the war (with his invasion) but Saddam!

In any case, I don't know why someone who is supposedly so rAtional would concern himself with things he deems to be old bones while believing others should not discuss them. I'm going with hypocrisy. No, make that astounding hypocrisy that stinks in my nostrils (a stink that I've reported on previously).

But I'm guessing that this rAtional mAn only objects when CERTAIN people bring up such topics. I know I'm in that group. Others are likely added (or excluded) by the rAtional hYpocrite as he sees fit.

SWTD #263, lDel #19.

On The Lunkheadedness Of A Wealth-Worshiping Koch-Loving Prevaricator

...what makes us angrier? 25 million dollars from conservative business owners who fix elections, suppress voters and shape policies which negatively impact million of Black folks nationwide? Or the fact that our schools can't afford to tell the Koch brothers' where to shove it? ~ Jarrett L. Carter, in regards to a Koch Brothers donation to the United Negro College Fund. (Quote excerpted from his 6/11/2014 article, "Koch Brothers' UNCF Gift Is Worst Symptom of HBCU Financial Crisis".

A lie about me from the blog of one Willis V. Hart is what I will be addressing with this post. Because if he's going to specifically mention me on his blog - and interject a big fat whopper about me into a post that would otherwise have nothing to do with me - well, I've got no choice but to author a response. Regardless of whether or not he reads it (and I am quite positive he will not).

Willis Hart: "On the Koch Brothers Donating $25,000,000 to the United Nergro College Fund"... By my count that's approximately $24,999,999 more than wd and the rest of those lunkheads (aka experts at spending other people's money) have ever donated to the thing. (6/16/2014 AT 5:03pm).

Apparently a "lunkhead" in the dictionary of Willis Hart is someone who does not worship wealth as he does. So what if they donated a ton of money to whatever charitable group? That hardly makes up for all the evil they do. By "evil", I mean, fund causes (think tanks, campaigns, etc) in an attempt to steer our government in a more Libertarian direction. So they can pay workers less, pollute more, pay less in taxes, etc.

Everything I, as a Democrat on the side of hard working Americans, am opposed to. So they spend some of their vast fortune in an attempt to buy some goodwill? Lunkheads like the Hartster lap it up. In their minds "we the people" shouldn't be deciding what causes are of value to society (and should receive funding). Those decisions should be left up to the wealthy people he loves and worships (metaphorically, not literally).

In regards to the LIE, I never said a damn thing (on the blog of Willis or elsewhere) about how the Kochs should spend "their" money. "Their" in quotes because - If the country were run the way I believe it should be - they'd be forced to pay workers more and to contribute more in taxes.

Or, they wouldn't exist because we wouldn't need them. Wouldn't need them because a lot more businesses would be co-ops. Businesses owned by workers so that the majority of the profits go to the people who actually do the work and not parasites who benefit from the labor of others.

That said, I'm a believer in capitalism and certainly do not wish to flip us to any kind of Communist system. The Koch brothers are free to do with "their" money as they see fit. That I've EVER said one word about me spending their money is a complete and total fabrication. What the dishonest Hartster refers to as "other people's money" is tax money. But tax money, once collected, no longer belongs to whomever it was collected from... you idiot!

Also, in regards to Rusty Schmuckelford saying "you wont see [other Lefty bloggers including] WD... give any credit to the Koch brothers... they will just try to denigrate them"... to which I say, damn straight.

Rusty also lumps rAtional nAtion into that group, and in response to that Mr. nAtion posted the following...

rAtional nAtion: ...reason tells me their philanthropic endeavors are carefully selected to serve their interests. IOW, where they get the biggest bang for their millions. Not much different than Soros actually. (6/17/2014 AT 5:28am).

I actually agree with Lester. Although in the case of George Soros, he is on the side that wishes to raise the taxes of folks like him... quite UNLIKE the Koch Brothers. So Lester is WAY wrong in that regard. He isn't, at least, as naive as Willis or Schmuckelford.

It should be noted that the UNCF President/CEO - who DEFENDED accepting the gift that will go to historically black colleges and universities) - said the purpose of the Koch donation was to "to give the impression of support for Black people without the troublesome task of directly doing so".

Indeed.

So, does that mean I think the UNCF should have told the Kochs to shove their donation? I surely wish they could have comfortably done that (because they did not desperately need it). But I'm not going to say they should have rejected the money (not my decision to make in any case). I am, however, going to agree with the criticisms of the Kochs by Jarrett L. Carter (as quoted at the top of my commentary).

The Kochs are the worst of the worst when it comes to plutocrats bribing our politicians and spending their ill-gotten gains to corrupt our political system in their favor. And the Kochs most certainly are in favor of suppressing votes and shaping policies which negatively impact millions of Black folks nationwide. Given that, there is no way in hell I would even think of praising them (even to a tiny degree) for this attempt to buy goodwill.

Although it clearly worked in regards to gullible lunkheads and stooges like Willis and Schmuckelford.

SWTD #262, wDel #67.

On "Their" Being Something Missing From An Idiot Blogger's Healthcare Free Market Magic Argument

Thirty-two of the thirty-three developed nations have universal health care, with the United States being the lone exception ~ quote from True Cost, a blog on American policy, economics, and social issues, as examined through the concept of "true cost".

rAtional nAtion, an individual I frequently disagree with recently made a comment on the blog of Willis Hart which I believe has some merit to it.

rAtional nAtion: I'm wondering if their is something missing here. I recall seeing an actual bill for childbirth back in the day. Total cost just over 300 dollars. Ever shopped for health insurance on the private market? It's interesting that prices for comparable plans Don't vary much and prices never seem to come down. (6/10/2014 AT 7:42pm).

This is in response to a Willis Hart Libertarian-bullplop "the free market can solve all our problems" screed, as follows...

Willis Hart: On the Idiotic Assertion that Competition Won't Bring Down the Cost of Healthcare Because Healthcare is a Necessity... This is an easy one to refute, folks. All that you have to do is compare healthcare spending as percentage of GDP prior to Medicare and Medicaid with that of what it's been since these programs. And here's the evidence. For the first 180 years or so of the republic, healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP was consistently in the low to middle single-digits, and it wasn't until government got massively involved (in the 1960s) that the numbers started skyrocketing. And the reasons for this are obvious. Whenever government gets into the business of subsiding something, the cost of that something invariably escalates. That, and the third-party payment system acts as a disincentive for folks to shop around and be better consumers, take better care of themselves, etc. I mean, I know that the phrase, "getting rid of the middle man", has gotten a little clicheish over the years but in this instance I gotta go along with it. (6/10/2014 AT 7:23pm).

Like the Word Salad Man I am also wondering if "their" is something missing. Scratch that... I'm positive THERE is something missing... because I know what it is. Missing from Hart's analysis of the healthcare market is the fact that other industrialized nations have Single Payer insurance. And THEIR subsidization is very high. However, their costs are much lower. But Willis foolishly overlooks this fact to make his magical "free market" argument.

Turns out it is Willis Hart's nonsense that is easy to refute. We really SHOULD get rid of the "middle man" and costs really would come down. Except we should replace the middle man who greedily desires huge profits (the private HC insurance companies) and replace them with a middle man that will do the job for no profit. That would be Single payer, a middle man insurance setup (and we do need to do this via insurance) where everything is under the control of We The People.

So, REALLY, why did health care costs being skyrocketing in the 60s? Willis blames government subsidization, and foolishly says it's "obvious" that "whenever government gets into the business of subsiding something, the cost of that something invariably escalates".

Sorry, but no, that was NOT the reason. As Forbes points out, in an article titled the "capitalist case for nonprofit health insurance", the reason for the costs going up was because we switched from a nonprofit to a profit model.

financial writer John Girouard: If you want to know what went wrong with our healthcare system and the best way to fix it, all you have to do is look back a few decades to a time when health care was a community concern, considered as essential as any public utility. ... Blue Cross, the most recognizable name, began in 1929 as a tax-exempt insurer covering a community of teachers in Dallas. Blue Shield was started as a tax-exempt insurer to cover employees of mining and lumber companies in the Pacific Northwest, with a group of local doctors providing care through a service bureau. We lost the positive aspects of affiliation health insurance starting in the 1960s and through the 1980s when Wall Street discovered there was money to be made turning nonprofit health insurers, hospitals and nursing homes into investor-owned companies. (Link to the 10/12/2009 article).

The greed of Wall Street is why the United States did not go the route of the other 32 developed nations. By the way, the "True Cost" blog says "the US will have universal health care in 2014 using an insurance mandate system" but this is not true given the SCOTUS decision that individual states could refuse the Medicaid expansion. Those too poor to afford HCI in those states still are without access. As a result 5.7 million Americans in 24 states that could otherwise qualify for Medicaid have been left behind - that is according to the White House website.

In addition, a transition to Single Payer is at least feasible, unlike the foolish Hartster's idea of getting rid of HCI altogether (except for catastrophic coverage). I guess he thinks Congress will be able (and willing) to pass a law getting rid of insurance companies... then what? Some people die during the transition period as people "shopping around" begins to drive down prices.

More likely quite a few people would die before the HC providers realized they had to make due with less profit. Although I imagine a lot of hospitals would close their doors. Yeah, I think a LOT of people would be onboard for this brilliant plan of action... NOT.

And I guess he thinks that when everyone is "shopping around" for the lowest prices, the HC insurers won't gouge for that catastrophic coverage because... who the f*ck knows?

A better idea? Transition to Single Payer by allowing people to buy into Medicare. Slowly the HC insurers would go not for profit or go out of business.

Finally, the assertion that competition won't bring down costs because healthcare is a necessity is not "idiotic", it is TRUE.

Joe Flower, author of Healthcare Beyond Reform: Doing It Right for Half the Cost: For the most part, people do not access health care for fun. Recreational colonoscopies are not big drivers of health care costs. In some cases, such as cosmetic surgery or laser eye corrections, the decision is clearly one the buyer can make. It's a classic economic decision: "Do I like this enough to pay for it?" But for the most part, people only access healthcare because they feel they have to. [Also] Risk has no relation to ability to pay. A poor person does not suddenly discover an absolute need to buy a new Jaguar, but may well suddenly discover an absolute need for the services of a neurosurgeon, an oncologist, a cancer center, and everything that goes with it. And the need is truly absolute. The demand is literally, "You obtain this or you die".

A person can shop around for the lowest price, but for a market to be "free" a person must be able to decide NOT to buy at all. Supply and demand drives a free market, and, obviously, when the demand is such that people must buy your product or die, the supplier can charge more. The only thing idiotic here is that someone would be deluded enough (by Libertarian free market fantasies) to believe this is not the case.

SWTD #261, wDel #66. See also OST #19.

On The Libertarian Idiocy of Equating Taxation With Armed Robbery

Taxation with representation ain't so hot either ~ Gerald Barzan*.

My response to the Libertarian idiocy of equating taxation with armed robbery, as articulated in the following commentary from the blog of a democracy-distrusting and State-hating (and fearing) paranoid... Specifically in regards to the following delusional rant...

Willis Hart: Yeah, Maybe We DO Need Some Gun-Control... Holding a gun to Stan's head and making him pay for Phil's hip replacement seems like such a morally untenable position and, yet, that is exactly what the socialist thugs have been advocating for close to a century now. Running out of other people's money, indeed. (6/7/2014 AT 10:23pm).

Pure stupidity, as well as vehemently anti-government and anti-reality. All governments employ a certain degree of socialism in order that vast swaths of people are not denied the necessities they require to live. Health care is one of those necessities of life. Wealth under a capitalist system tends to concentrate at the top. No economic system is perfect, and this is capitalism's big flaw.

Yet Libertarians DON'T consider it any kind of theft at all when the rich and powerful use their power to steal from workers (by paying them LESS than the value of their labor) in order that they can accumulate even more wealth.

Because of this flaw The People in this representative democracy have decided (via voting) that we need Progressive taxation. In our REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY THE PEOPLE DECIDED THIS BY VOTING! We may be a nation of individuals, but society has needs as well, and it is the job of government to see to it that those needs are met.

Only total morons would refer to the meeting of these needs as "theft", especially given the fact that we all have a vote! What other way SHOULD we see to it that the needs of society are met in the addled brains of these Libertarian stupids?

Run out of "other people's" money? Yeah, that really is something that we should be quite concerned about... much more so than our poverty problem... NOT.

"Wealth, Income, and Power" by G. William Domhoff, Excerpt: In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2010, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.1%. (from the website Who Rules America).

No sane individual, in my strong opinion, would spend most of their time worrying about rich people RUNNING OUT of money when the top 1 percent has 35.4% of it. This type of a mindset is a kind of mental illness, I believe, and the Hartster suffers from it GREATLY, writing post after post on his blog in which he ruminates on the plight of the wealthy and imaginary "socialist thugs" who want to steal all that they have.

As someone who worships at the altar of the wealthy, the story put forth by Willis (Stan being forced at gunpoint to pay for Phil's hip replacement surgery) illustrates his serious lack of perspective. This fool is more concerned about the rich Stan "running out of money" than he is that Phil, without that surgery, might end up an invalid lying in his bed - unable to work and contribute to society - and be unable to provide for his family too.

Me, I'd rather get Phil that surgery so he can get back to work and provide for his family - because he will have to go on public assistance in order to LIVE otherwise. I mean, unless this idiot's suggestion is that we let Phil live in excruciating pain... and he and his family lose everything and become homeless - which course of action will actually cost less? (this is an EASY one folks). And it BY FAR the more morally untenable situation as well.

Most people (rich or middle class or in between) realize that paying taxes is a necessary to live in a civilized society. Only a very small number complain and falsely equate taxation to armed robbery. We know them as "Libertarians" (and Republicans, to a lesser extent). This (Libertarianism) is an selfish ideology that says the greedy rich person has little to no responsibility to society as a whole.

Taxes in a democracy are NOT robbery, armed or otherwise... they are what we have all agreed (via voting) is necessary. Taxation with representation might not be so hot either (when you're the one paying), but all rational people acknowledge it's necessity... and they don't moronically suggest "gun control" for federal agents come to collect the taxes of people who refuse to pay.

If you believe that taxes should be lower vote Republican... or Libertarian (which very few people actually do). In regards the various method by which society can be run, democracy is the fairest, so complaints about "robbery" when we're doing things as fairly as we can is beyond ridiculous.

And by "as fairly as we can", I mean within an imperfect system (as there is no such thing as the PERFECT system). Sure, there will always be room for improvement, but (in my strong opinion) people complaining about "robbing" rich people (who have a LARGE percentage of the wealth) when we've all agreed (via elections) to the level of taxation we need... well, I think the term "total moron" might apply to these worshipers of wealth.

*Note: Who is Gerald Barzan? Apparently, aside from him being a humorist, nobody knows.

SWTD #260, wDel #65.

World Nut Daily (WND) Sez "Impeach Obama For Aiding Terrorists" (Re Bowe Bergdahl Prisoner Swap)

This is something that I would do again and I will continue to do wherever I have an opportunity, if I have a member of our military who's in captivity ~ President Barack Obama talks about his decision to do the right thing (6/6/2014).

The Extreme Rightwing publication known as World Net Daily, or WND (or "World Nut Daily") has a petition up on their website calling for the impeachment of President Obama. The reason? The Bowe Bergdahl prisoner swap amounts to Obama aiding terrorists (and is the last straw)!

WND is, by the way, the Obama-hate-site that generates a lot of traffic by pandering to racists in a BIG way... being a publication that ruminates NOT infrequently on the danger of "Black mobs" (although WND sez they "consider it racist not to report racial abuse solely because of the skin color of the perpetrators...").

According to the "expert" opinion of one ex-military man scumbag named William Boykin, President Obama is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors in regards to the Bergdahl swap (among other things). Boykin, a crayZee Conservative "Christian" who was caught on a hot mic saying "Jews are the problem" and the "cause of all the problems in the world" and "that President Obama identifies with and supports Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood", is quoted in the petition as saying Obama ignored federal law in pursuit of an administration goal.

A Slate article by Emily Bazelon says the problem is that Obama "didn't tell Congress about the prisoner release 30 days ahead of time, as a recent federal law requires... [although] to justify this omission, the administration has invoked Obama's signing statement, which he added to the law for certain circumstances, like negotiating over detainee transfers, in which it would violate constitutional separation of powers principles to consult Congress".

Emily Bazelon refers to this as Obama's "Gitmo Fail" (the title of the article), but frankly I don't give a shit. LET the Repubs TRY to go after Obama on this. The truth is that they are all fking hypocrites in regards to the stink they are currently raising, as MANY Cons criticized the President for not doing enough (previously) to bring Bergdahl home.

"Lawmakers Change Their Minds After Demanding Every Effort Be Made To Free Bergdahl" (ThinkProgress 6/3/2014, excerpts) ...many of the administration's loudest critics have previously demanded that it do more to bring Bergdahl to safety. ...John McCain told Anderson Cooper in February that he "would be inclined to support an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man", like the one Taliban officials had offered in 2012. He has since labeled Obama's deal "ill-founded" and a "mistake". Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) also thinks that "the administration's decision to release these five terrorist detainees endangers U.S. national security interests"... But since 2011, Ayotte has issued multiple press releases and public statements calling on the Obama administration to "redouble its efforts" to find Bergdahl. "I renew my call on the Defense Department to... find Sergeant Bergdahl and return him safely to his family" she wrote just one week ago. Sen. Jim Inhofe - the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee - has also said that the U.S. "must make every effort to bring this captured soldier home to his family". But appearing on Fox News just days after Bergdahl's release, Inhofe criticized the administration for agreeing to free "people who have killed Americans, people who are the brain power of Taliban". (article by Igor Volsky).

I don't know how bringing home a US serviceman, especially given that we were going to release five Taliban Gitmo prisoners anyway, could possibly be a "mistake". OBVIOUSLY the motivation for the Repub criticisms NOW over the deal that brought Bergdahl home - when they were critical of the administration NOT DOING ENOUGH previously - is ENTIRELY political in nature, and SHAMELESSLY so.

"Why The Five Taliban Detainees Had To Be Released Soon, No Matter What" ThinkProgress 6/2/2014, excerpts) The US is engaged in an armed conflict in Afghanistan against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces authorized by Congress under the 2001 AUMF. It remains controversial whether this armed conflict extends beyond Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan, but what is not in doubt is that of the enemy forces party to this conflict, the Taliban is confined to Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Obama recently announced that the combat role for the US in the armed conflict in Afghanistan will end this year and all participation will completely cease by 2016. When wars end, prisoners taken custody must be released. These five Gitmo detainees were almost all members of the Taliban, according to the biographies of the five detainees that the Afghan Analysts Network compiled in 2012. None were facing charges in either military or civilian courts for their actions. It remains an open question whether the end of US involvement in the armed conflict in Afghanistan requires that all Gitmo detainees be released. But there is no doubt that Taliban detainees captured in Afghanistan must be released because the armed conflict against the Taliban will be over. In traditional conflicts, both sides would release their prisoners at the conclusion of hostilities. This is not a traditional conflict, however, and the Obama administration rightly had no expectation that Sgt. Bergdahl would have been released when US forces [left] Afghanistan. As that date neared, any leverage the US possessed would have been severely undermined. (article by Ken Gude).

Furthermore, the ThinkProgress notes the following (IMO) pertinent facts...

Conservative critics... refuse to appreciate the cunning maneuvers that secured the release of the lone American soldier taken prisoner in Afghanistan at little risk to the security of the United States. ...the evidence demonstrates that the Obama administration has been remarkably successful at preventing detainees it has released from Guantanamo from engaging in militant activities against the United States. Statistics from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence show that only 6 percent (5 in total) of Guantanamo detainees released during the Obama administration have been assessed to have potentially engaged in militant activities. That compares with a rate of nearly 30 percent under the Bush administration. (Attribution same as above).

The issue of whether or not Bowe Bergdahl is a deserter is separate, and can addressed in full now that he is in our custody and can present his side of the story. What we absolutely should not have done was to deem Bergdahl guilty and that the "punishment" would be to allow him to remain a Taliban POW (and possibly be executed by them).

(Although there are some who say they have "never argued that we shouldn't have tried to repatriate Bergdahl", but now that we have him, he should be given a trial as a "formality" and then put to death. And with the putting to death there are some who agree).

In regards to the desertion charge, obviously that is something that a soldier absolutely can NOT do. Surely Bergdahl could have objected in another manner if that was his inclination (and it is my understanding that it was). However, according to the Libertarian Reason Magazine (a 5/6/2014 article by Sheldon Richman) "[we] shouldn't blame Bowe Bergdahl for deserting in the fog of endless war".

Reason article excerpts... The "fog of war" is a reference to the moral chaos as well as the rampant confusion on the battlefield. Individuals kill others for no other reason than that they are ordered to. Things deemed unambiguously bad in civilian life are authorized and even lauded in war. ...Bergdahl seems to have been plagued by this question [his responsibility in regards to the deaths of innocent civilians].

The author of the Reason article goes on to quote Anand Gopal, author of No Good Men Among the Living: America, the Taliban, and the War through Afghan Eyes.

By mid-2002 there was no insurgency in Afghanistan: al-Qaeda had fled the country and the Taliban had ceased to exist as a military movement. Jalaluddin Haqqani (whose "network" held Bergdahl captive) and other top Taliban figures were reaching out to the other side in an attempt to cut a deal and lay down their arms. [However], driven by the idée fixe that the world was rigidly divided into terrorist and non-terrorist camps, Washington allied with Afghan warlords and strongmen. Their enemies became ours, and through faulty intelligence, their feuds became repackaged as "counterterrorism".

So, death for Bowe Bergdahl, a soldier with a conscience who questioned his role in combat that lead to innocents being killed, but no repercussions for those at the top who got us involved in this pointless war (the war criminals in the bush administration)?

That, I've got a huge problem with. I've also got a huge problem with our current president keeping us involved in said war... and even foolishly "surging"... based on the dishonest idée fixe that surging worked in Iraq (when it did not).

An article by Jean Mackenzie of Global Post (via the Salon website) notes that "Bergdahl was a troubled young man, with naive and very unrealistic views on his service in Afghanistan [who] thought he was joining the Peace Corps with guns, going over to help Afghans".

So, who is responsible for the soldiers who were killed while looking for Bergdahl? Obviously Bergdahl bears some responsibility, but what about those who made the decision to involve us in this unwinable conflict? And why the hell did we think we could prevail when the Soviets did not?

Yes, those deaths were regrettable, but Bergdahl obviously shouldn't have been there to begin with. Or he should have been removed from that situation as soon as those around him realized he was "troubled". In regards to that point, I'd place some of the blame on the stigma that is attached to the mental health issue... and in regards to that the same Global Post article I just quoted notes the following...

...journalist Matthieu Aikins, who reports regularly from Afghanistan, tweeted: "Does running unarmed into Taliban terrain seem sane to you? Maybe Bergdahl's act should be seen through PTSD/mental health prism".

Maybe. Surely I would not be so stupid/uncaring as to say the "dude is going to be just fine", or that "I have no concern for Bergdahl per se, [instead] my concern is the principle of the matter"... when we're talking about a job (being a soldier) that involves KILLING people. Surely only a moron could not see that this might affect a person's ability to think rationally.

So, yes, I do have some concern for Bergdahl. I've also got concern for the war criminals who stupidly decided to get us bogged down in a pointless and unwinnable war - especially given the fact that the Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden prior to our invasion but bush refused to negotiate (as the author of the Reason article points out)... concern that they will never be held accountable for their actions. And I've also got concern for the Obama administration that let the bush war criminals off the hook.

But assholes like William Boykin and those at WND who are calling for impeachment while citing the fake Benghazi and fake IRS scamdals? And the hypocrite asshole Repub politicians who are criticizing Obama for bringing Bowe Bergdahl home when the previously criticized him for not doing enough to bring Bowe Bergdahl home? F*ck them. And f*ck the idiots and racist bigots who are signing the petition too.

I'm not going to say f-you to whoever created a petition at the White House site to punish Bergdahl, however. He did break the rules and these people - the creator and the 19,156 individuals who signed to thus far - are entitled to voice their opinion on the matter.

I surely am not going to sign it, however. I found the petition after doing a Google search looking for a White House petition in SUPPORT of Bergdahl. Apparently there isn't one. In any event, my f-you is reserved for, as Grung E Gene of the blog Disaffected And It Feels So Good puts it, the "dishonorable conservative hypocrites [who] piss on the troops, veterans and Bowe Bergdahl".

Well said, Gene. I must say that I agree completely that these evil individuals hate our servicemembers. For the record, I added the word "evil", and if you think that is too harsh, keep in mind that the definition of evil is something that is "morally wrong or bad".

Is it morally wrong or bad to use service members as political cudgels - by first calling for an administration you seek to destroy to "free Bergdahl by any means necessary" - and then attacking the administration when it does just that... well, that is most certainly morally wrong and bad in my strong opinion.

(By the way, the Taliban has never been designated as a terrorist organization, so the Obama administration did not "negotiate with terrorists". Finally, I was very disappointed to see the WND impeachment document quoting Jonathan Turley who "says Obama's deserter-for- terrorists deal proves that 'what's emerging is an imperial presidency'". And he said this on Sean Hannity's program for crying out loud. Ugh).

Notes
[1] h/t to Infidel753 for the word "scamdal" in reference to the fake Obama administration scandals.
[2] h/t to Grung E Gene for the link to the story concerning the "by any means necessary" January 2014 petition created by the conservative opinion and commentary website PJ Media.

See also: OST #17.

SWTD #259

On "Arming" Oneself with "Facts" Dissembled By Gun Nut John Lott

I think we need more of what I would call evidence-based discussion and not merely people pulling things out of their hats ~ Dr. Sripal Bangalore, coauthor of a study that found that more guns do not make people safer. (quote from the 9/19/2013 ABC News article "U.S. Has More Guns – And Gun Deaths – Than Any Other Country, Study Finds" by Sydney Lupkin).

Apparently there is absolutely NOTHING that can be done to curb gun violence. That is, according to Libertarian blogger Willis Hart, a non-gun-owning-gun-nut who frequently proclaims that he might support some type of gun legislation, but that such laws would be "for solace only".

Willis Hart: "Armed With the Facts"... According to the University of Maryland's John Lott, there were more than 1.8 million right to carry permits issued in the state of Florida from 1987 to 2010 and only 167 of these individuals ever had their permits revoked - .009% (with the vast majority of these instances being misdemeanors). I really don't think that we have all that much to worry about when it come to the lawful gun-owners of America (you know, those who would actually consent to a background check), folks. And I'm not necessarily saying here that I'm opposed to background checks, just that they're probably much more for solace than they are preventative and that we really shouldn't be expecting much once they're instituted. (6/2/22014 AT 8:25pm).

John Lott, huh? That would be the John Lott who is a gun rights advocate, formerly employed the American Enterprise Institute (a conservative think tank), and who is currently a Fox News opinion contributor... right?

Lott is also the author of More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns. Newsweek dubbed him "The Gun Crowd's Guru". Sounds like a good non-biased source for information on guns, no?

Criticisms of Lott's study include there being "problems with [his] model" including that it "contained significant coding errors and systemic bias" and that he "failed to account for several key variables"... and for these reasons Lott's "model was flawed".

The National Academy of Sciences conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott's work, and found "no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime" (excerpts from Wikipedia).

Even more damning, there have been "charges that gun makers or the NRA have paid for Lott's research".

In 1996 when Lott's research first received media attention, Charles Schumer wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "The Associated Press reports that Prof. Lott's fellowship at the University of Chicago is funded by the Olin Foundation, which is associated with the Olin Corporation, one of the nation's largest gun manufacturers. [Also] ...in a debate on Piers Morgan Tonight on July 23, 2012, Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz claimed: "This is junk science at its worst. Paid for and financed by the National Rifle Association".

Makes one wonder how factual these "facts" are that Willis is arming himself with.

[Media Matters reports that Lott's 2013 book] At the Brink: Will Obama Push Us Over The Edge?, is filled with inaccurate claims about guns and firearm policy. Lott makes a range of misleading or blatantly false statements, including that the worst school shootings in the world have not occurred in the United States and that concealed carry laws help prevent mass shootings. (3/12/2013 Media Matters article).

Media Matters reporting (and debunking of) the lies in Lott's book include the following; which they deemed to be the "nine worst claims about guns...

1. Claim: establishing gun-free zones actually make mass shootings MORE likely. Truth: this is refuted by statistics and the fact that most recent mass shootings have occurred where guns ARE allowed.
2. Claim: Obama supported a ban on handguns in 1996. Truth: Politifact says FALSE. The president's true view is that "a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable, but reasonable restrictions should be imposed".
3. Claim: assault Weapons inflict the same damage as small-game hunting rifles. Truth: A study of soldiers killed by high-velocity rifle rounds found that "the nature of internal tissue injuries from rifled firearm weapons depend greatly on the velocity of the missile", and "that rounds with a velocity exceeding 2,500 feet per second cause a shockwave to pass through the body that caused catastrophic injuries even in areas remote to the direct wound".
4. Claim: Mass shootings are often prevented by civilians carrying firearms. Truth: an analysis of mass shootings over th epast 30 years shows that "in not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun).
5. Claim: LEOs support legislation to loosen concealed carry rules. Truth: Various law enforcement groups signed a letter in opposition to H.R. 822, a piece of proposed legislation that would force states to recognize the validity of concealed carry permits issued in other states.
6. Claim: Germany, despite having some Of the strictest gun-control laws anywhere, has been the scene of two of the 3 worst school shootings in the world. Truth: the two worst school shootings occurred in the US.
7. Claim: the "vast majority" of studies have found concealed carry reduces homicide. Truth: A John Hopkins Center For Gun Policy And Research says "concealed carry laws [have been] linked to [an] increase in aggravated assault".

The final two "facts" rebuked (8+9) are Fast and Furious conspiracy theories, including the loony tunes assertion that F&F was "an Obama Administration plot to implement further restrictions on gun ownership". This is a conspiracy theory that says, after allowing a buttload of guns to cross the border, the administration could then "depict Mexico as awash in American guns" and that would "build pressure in the United States for gun control" [1].

That, right there, says to me that this Lott fellow is a certifiable gun nutter. And I say that the same applies to people who might cite him as a credible source. They too are gun nuts, even if they do not own any guns.

(Please note that the list above is my condensing of the Media Matters information. See the Media Matters article linked to above for the uncondensed version).

As for Hart's assertion that he "really can't find all that much evidence that gun control works", I'd say that is due to him looking in the wrong places. I mean, if you're primarily reading studies/papers/books by people like John Lott, I would not expect you'd find evidence that gun control works.

John Tepper Marlin, the chief economist for the NJ Institute for Social Justice, says it does work.

Gun Control Works: ...the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) [has] just-released [a] 10-year review of the UK Peace Index, [and it shows] violence in the UK is down 11 percent [which the IEP attribute to Britain's complete ban on handguns]. [The proof is that while] 2 out of 3 US homicides are committed with guns ...in the UK the figure is only 1 out of 13. ... In 2012-13, Britain had 87 gun deaths, more than half using shotguns; of them, 45 were suicides, nearly two-thirds of them using shotguns. Firearms offenses have been brought down from 25,000 in 2002 to fewer than 10,000 in 2011. [Also] whereas gun violence occurs all over the US - east-west, urban-rural, north-south - more than half of all gun-related offenses in the UK occur in just 3 police jurisdictions, namely Metropolitan London, Greater Manchester, and West Midlands (Birmingham metro area). This suggests that gun use has largely been suppressed everywhere except in the hard-core anonymous big cities. [Conclusion?] ...this is on the face of it a compelling argument for gun control and should be thrust in front of the U.S. Senate. (Excerpts from Mr. Marlin's 5/06/2013 HuffPo article).

So, Willis WAS able to find the writings of Mr. Lott... a gun nutter whose "evidence" has is either highly disputed or been outright debunked (because it is complete BS), but he has NOT been able to find evidence (actual evidence) like that presented by Mr. Marlin. (Both Lott and Marlin are economists, btw).

Why might that be, I wonder? Possibly because one finds the evidence one wishes to find? At least in this case I think that is EXACTLY what is happening... despite claims of "trying to be empirical". I mean, it isn't if the Hartster actually found this conflicting information but discounted it (and gave his reasons why). He says he didn't find it AT ALL! Or he did and he believes it to be not "all that much evidence" (an out of hand dismissal).

Who knows and who cares. Point is we all know this is a person who listens to researches on the fringe that tell him things he wishes to hear. How else could one conclude that global warming is a hoax, that green energy is bad, or that gun control legislation (of ANY variety, apparently) would be for "solace" only?

Hey, Willis, what about stopping people who wouldn't pass a background check buying firearms at gun shows? Would stopping them be for "solace" only too? I wouldn't be surprised if he said YES. Remember he did say that if expanded background check legislation should be passed that "we really shouldn't be expecting much".

Also, hey, Willis, what about stopping people who wouldn't pass a background check buying firearms at gun shows? Would stopping them be for "solace" only as well? I wouldn't be surprised if he said YES [2]. Remember he did say that if expanded background check legislation should pass that "we really shouldn't be expecting much".

What a dope.

Updates
[1] 4/21/2015: Willis thinks the gun show BG check loophole is a "leftist anti-gun talking-point". So, yeah, I guess it would be for "solace only" to pass such an (unneeded) law. See SWTD #279 and scroll down to the "Gun Show Loophole Dishonesty" subheading for my debunking of Willis' claim that there is no gun show loophole.
[2] 6/22/2015: Willis lies about operation Wide Receiver (WR) to defend GWB. He sez WR, which was what F&F was called under the bush administration, involved no gunwalking - when it did. And he sez WR "was conducted with the full knowledge and cooperation of the Mexican government" when the truth is that "the vast majority of guns were not tracked and Mexico's government was not fully informed of the case". And, get this... the source of my info is an article by Sharyl Attkisson, a journalist that Willis himself has cited in many commentaries on his blog. Concerning Sharyl, Willis says "the woman is a consummate and award-winning professional who goes after Democrats and Republicans with equal fervor". But Willis obviously doesn't like that she went after bush with "equal fervor". If he did he wouldn't lie about WR.
[3] 10/2/2015: I changed the link attached to "what a dope" (above) from a "fact sheet" from the National Gun Victims Action Council titled "gun show loophole arms criminals" because it now comes up as "Error 404 Not Found". Does this mean they retracted their claim? I doubt it. However, the page is gone, so I changed the link to another page that also shows that the gun show loophole arms criminals... this one titled "expanded gun background checks will make state safer" (the state in question being Nevada, although surely this statement applies to all states where the gun show loophole exists).

SWTD #258, wDel #64.

Exciting New Literary Work From Novice Historian Willis Hart!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History Book Stupidity

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

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

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

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

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

In other words...

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

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

Will Hart: [Dervish Sanders is] a total moron... Anybody who's taken as little as an introductory history course knows that slavery wasn't the predominant reason for Lincoln's actions or even the South's... (3/22/2014 AT 2:44pm).

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

So, in other words...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SWTD #256, wDel #62.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia: The Republican Party was founded in the Northern states in 1854 by anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex-Whigs, and ex-Free Soilers [and] quickly became the principal opposition to the dominant Southern Democratic Party. [But the Republican Party eventually turned away from their anti-slavery roots...] Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery before the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation. The [Southern] strategy was first adopted under future Republican President Richard Nixon and Republican Senator Barry Goldwater in the late 1960s. The strategy was successful in winning 5 formerly Confederate states in both the 1964 and 1968 presidential elections. It contributed to the electoral realignment of some Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party. (Excerpts from the Wikipedia Pages "Republican Party (United States)/Founding and 19th century" AND "Southern Strategy".

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

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

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

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

SWTD #255, wDel #61.