william.scherk

There may not be many Jews (7,000) in Alaska, but the Jews have been in Alaska since Russian times. See an informative chronicle about Alaskan Jews and their roots and accomplishments at the Alaska Dispatch News, excerpt below. Your cryptic explanation for the number of Jews in Alaska and jails -- are you going to spell it out? They are too smart for jail and too smart for Alaska? Alaska, like jail, is not attractive to Jews? The icy conditions of The North prevent Jews from being Jewish? -- if the latter, I'd have to introduce you to the Jews of Canada, one of whom was premier here in British Columbia. We even have Jewish ice hockey players! (if Jews made it to China, and only died out/assimilated in the 20th century, if Jews were in Yemen, Ethiopia, India, Kurdistan and Edinburgh, you surely can have more 'weird' things in mind ...)

Fear mongering and ignorance. What a happy couple.

Do you have a link or something to support this etymology? I hadn't heard this about the pigments ... ________________ EDIT: after a quick information mission into word origins, I find an argument for the phrase emerging as a 'affectless' signifier, one that was in use by 'redskins' to differentiate from 'blackskins' and 'whiteskins,' and which had a much less pejorative connotation the further back you go to its origins. So, yeah, not always an insult. Up here, in conversation, calling someone redskin would be either anachronistic, unpleasantly 'affectionate' like "Darky," or akin to fighting words. It's no longer 'affectless' in usage. A side note on another, more fraught word: faggot. This is a word that when uttered still gives me a chill. If someone calls me a faggot to my face, it feels like a prelude to physical aggression. But I don't hear the word much at all, and it has been a few years since it was applied to me with menaces. Same with 'queer.' The only place I have heard that lately is out of Wolf's mouth. I don't think redskins is half as fraught as faggot, but I can imagine that it would sting in proportion to the insult intended. Up here, there is a pot of truly ugly fighting words to apply to aboriginal people. My heart sinks when I hear them used. The words are only meant to disparage, to humiliate, to denigrate. So, I am not troubled by the Washington Redskins name, personally. It's measurably less offensive than the cartoon mascot for the Indians.

Okay, fair enough. I thought this was the money quote from WHO ... I realize that I haven't commented on the original post in this thread. I found it just disheartening enough in its title to not read what I imagined were the arguments. "We shoulda kept a race-based drawbridge up in 1964. Negroes from Africa shoulda been kept out, and every bad disease we have faced since woulda been kept where it belonged, on the Dark Continent." In reality the low tide was still to come, with Vegas's 'pesthole.' The kind of generalization that sets my teeth on edge. And Wolf's careful rendering of African failure as a whole to live up to the mark (in statistics). That was of no purpose but to dehumanize, to my eye ... How little empathy and 'emergency thinking' has been on display here? How much rational, practical discussion, and how much unalloyed bigotry? Maybe Jerry's head-in-sand attitude is better. It avoids fear and loathing of Dark Ebola Blood Coming to Your Town Now, and it avoids demonizing a continent and counselling a cruel disconnection from a broad humanity. But Jerry's head in the sand is no better than panic quarantine cull. It fails to engage with reality as she really is. On a personal, gut level, I feel that the West should do its best to help. In my thoughts picked clean of emotion, I don't think ignoring/quarantining/disengaging is smart for America or smart for Europe or smart for Canada (or India). At this point in the outbreak, abandoning Africa and international aid efforts will pay no good dividends. I believe it is separately in our own national interests to institute real emergency response -- including Western military. I hope our government does more. Pestilential thoughts though these may be, it's what I come up with on balance. Derek, I am with you on the Whiskey Tango Foxtrot about 'pesthole.' I don't like it.

Oh I know, I just wanted to start there and see how far down the line I could take it The thread started by Marotta covered the bases. In the end, he was reduced to whining about his unfair treatment: All I did was raise the issue. And in return, I met the usual ignorance, superstition, resentment and hatred given by the mob to every new idea.

Chicken pox is rarely fatal, nor does it persist for a lifetime as does HIV. Michael Marotta has elsewhere introduced the notion that coming to work sick is near criminal, in the thread "No Right to Spread Diseases." . Exposing someone to the HIV virus without their knowledge is a criminal offence in Canada, the USA and in the UK. Hundreds of convictions have been achieved, according to this story at the Globe and Mail.

Not exacly. It's not the sperm, but the seminal fluid -- semen. Along with blood, serum, urine, respiratory and throat secretions, (according to tne Public Health Agency here in Canada). I can't imagine what you recommend for India. It has not yet emerged in that country, and there is no reason to assume Indians are especially suspect. Ebola is harboured in the human being, in its organs and secretions -- not in water resources -- so your scary photo is not particularly apt. By the way, where did you get the sperm information in the first place?

Do you know what those troops normally do, how they are trained, what their mission is, which precautions are customary and required? I doubt it, so it is merely panic that suggests a thousand returning infected troops. It is unclear to me how stupid you think the troops are. Do you really think that the troops are without adequate Ebola protections? If so, then that particular false belief can lead to further false beliefs -- that the troops will be not be able to protect themselves. As you say, you "dunno." Which suggests you can get knickers in a twist contemplating a false scenario. As with Peter Taylor's whack notion. As if the troops are going in naked without protection. As if it isn't known how to take adequate prophylactic measures ... It "might" get into African cities? Jeezus, Brant, it already is in the African city Conakry. It's a frightening crisis for the three nations it is impacting. Whack. What CDC dude? What treason? For those who are interested, here is yesterday's briefing from the US military, Pentagon Briefing on DoD Response to Ebola with General Rodriguez Video here: http://static.dvidshub.net/media/video/1410/DOD_102019766/DOD_102019766.mp4

I don't understand this. To inspect passengers arriving from Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia -- how is this insane? I guess there is an alternative or alternatives: do nothing; do nothing; don't do anything; screen for Ebola symptoms at the originating airport; don't do anything; don't do anything. To my eyes -- given the actual extent of international responses to the outbreak -- to screen arriving passengers is most sane. (in an entirely Objectivish earth, there would of course be no state public health authorities charged with prevention or control of disease outbreaks. Presumably current institutions would be either privatized or dismantled. In that perfect world, Ebola would scourge who it wanted, travel where it wanted, hitch rides on who it came in contact with. Without the devilish World Health Organization, without the demonic CDC, private enterprise would somehow 'regulate' disease without regulating human beings. Thus ... if an outbreak of a nasty disease begins to spread outside its main centres of infection ... what?) Here's a bit of news from the UK, where screening measures have been instituted. From the Independent. I understand that by Objectivist principles it can be argued that nations (like the USA) owe sweet fuck all to any other nation. In this case, any 'altruistic' outlay of American resources or personnel is disgusting and wrong. What about the real world? It occurs to me that all the zany 'close our borders' antics reveal a poor estimation of risk and reward, cost and benefit. It's as if some of us here are unable to do anything but panic ... and call for the most extreme Government responses imaginable. Is that the best, most reasonable position to take? I think it is just fantasies taking hold. Here's a link to the White House briefing that lays out the entire US response to the crisis in Africa, FACT SHEET: U.S. Response to the Ebola Epidemic in West Africa\ Now, I understand how tempting it is to issue coulda, shoulda, oughta policies. But I think it is a good idea to be accurate about what actually is being done. It's a massive effort. Just a sample of the White House document:

I don't care. In either case, I'm not concerned about viruses in the news. This is bullshit. Jerry. You cared enough about viruses in the news to make nonsense claims about Ebola. Remember? You confidently claimed that Ebola was a hoax. And now upon Derek's query, you don't care. You won't answer the quite cogent question of 'what do you mean?' ... That's unfair and does not show good faith. You raise questions and they are answered by thoughtful people. You are asked several times to add some precision to your claim Ebola-is-a-hoax -- and you shrug them off. Maybe the time approaches when I ought to put you on ignore, but ignoring pernicious nonsense on OL allows it to spread. It taints the forum, in my opinion -- much as Dean's fantasy hoaxes tainted discourse. So, as long as you denigrate others as fools and dupes and pollute the pool, I will be challenging you strongly.

Not me, not yet at any rate. All I can know so far is that Jerry believes something about Ebola is a hoax. His general POV about government dishonesty is not a useful heuristic in re Ebola -- it doesn't allow differentiation between truth or untruth in particulars. A useful heuristic would help us to informally classify particulars. It would give criteria for accepting or rejecting a particular. It would show the steps necessary to carry out a reasoned analysis. So, for me, the POV is cognitively crippled -- it is restricted to a narrow view, and it is darkened by bias and bigotry. This is an epistemological puzzle for me. "The information" market writ large will be a combination of reasoned/logical/tested informaton ... and extrapolations, distortions, misapprehensions, rumour, and cant. "The Information" would also include truth ... though you have left that out of the mix(!). If I can reduce the focus to Ebola, of course "The information" we get (and how we get it) is prone to the very same mix of truth, rumour and bullshit. For me, the information generally available about viruses ranges wide. On one side we have the most rigorous applications of science -- the side that 'discovered' viruses and how they operate and how they differentiate and how they replicate and how they mutate -- and the mechanisms of a given virus's virulence and vectors of infection. At the other pole, we have outright denial of the reality of viruses. At this pole collect the nonsense accrued. Here we find those opinions that combine ignorance and error and false statements (eg, Bill Maher's nonsense on the subject). Here I find a welter of "the information" that is not credible, not the result of hard slogging rational inquiry. For me, advances in biology have opened the amazing macroscopic world of our bodies -- opened to our understanding the world of the immune system, its parts, its mechanisms, its failures, its amazing complex structures. There really is compelling detailed knowledge of Ebola -- discernible under the crust of cant and blather and news/entertainment simplifications. It is so sad to me that Jerry does not understand that the only thing that stands between us and crushing ignorance is reason. That he cavalierly disposes of reason ... and shows no insight into his cognitive errors -- this suggests to me that he actually rejects reason, rejects the very idea of well-warranted knowledge (in this instance the operation of the Ebola virus in primates, humans). So, in this sense, I feel Jerry insults all our intelligence, assigns us to the column Rubes and Fools. Because he knows better. Because we are all fooled by the FDA and the CDC, fooled by the 'hoax.' You may find, Mike, that passing insults based on Jerry's peculiar modes of thinking are the most significant. I disagree strongly -- I hold that Jerry insults the spirit of reason. I hold that his specious claims are deeply insulting in the abstract (fools who believe that Ebola is a dangerous virus) and in the particular (William, you are a fool and a dupe of the CDC/Government/FDA). I find it more generally insulting that pernicious nonsense is peddled here. I will agree that Jerry doesn't know (accept as true) the underlying facts. And I would argue Jerry doesn't care about the underlying facts. I would argue, moreover, that Jerry doesn't actually believe facts can reliably be had -- he mistrusts or anathematizes the very 'fact'-based regimes of knowledge accrual that expose facts to our view ... So a bland and general statement that "mostly" we are ignorant of the facts -- this rubs me entirely the wrong way. I infer that attempts on grasping 'underlying facts' are so prone to error or bias or deception that they are without value ... I will state that I do mostly know the underlying facts, and that you also have a reasonable approximation of the facts that are in play. I would say you accept (or believe or understand or know) that the reality of hemorrhagic virus is such and so, that such and so can be and has been empirically validated. That the virus and its genetic material has been accurately typed. That the means of transmission are understood. That prophylactic measures can be successful. That the virulence of the virus is accurately described and understood. That the Ebola virus can be reliably differentiated from the other hemorrhagic viruses in the world. That the epidemiology of Ebola is understood with reasonable certainty. I believe you accept all these things as relatively 'factual' -- within the constraints and uncertainties of scientific reasoning. So, reading words of approbation for Jerry's loosey-goosey epistemology is surprising. It strikes me as passive, incurious, evidence of a kind of 'relativity of truth.' It places doubt not as a tool of inquiry, but a tool of obfuscation. It elevates a curious kind of skepticism (Oh, we can never know, can we?) in which knowledge is not just conditional (on truth) but is unapproachable. In the context of Ebola, this is far too skeptical for me. An over-broad skeptical "we cannot know" seems to me a kind of "I give up on attempting to know." It devalues reason, and suggests we should be comfortable in our ignorance. No doubt I have read too much into your interjection, Mike. But I believe there is such a thing as reliable knowledge, validated by experiment and empirical observations (of the Ebola virus and its current epidemic in Africa). So, I use your interjection to make a case for reason, not to denigrate you or Jerry as a human being. I can't leave Jerry's lack of reason unchallenged. My motivation in challenging Jerry (and in similar context, Dean) is to put beliefs to a rational test. It is significant to me that Jerry cannot mount a defense of his original Ebola claims. He can't or won't lay out his reasoning on Ebola. It disturbs me that Jerry cannot establish a common cause with the other Realist Reasoners here. The microbiology of Ebola (and other hemorrhagic viruses) is a work in progress, but at present "the information" from that work is the best available (by the measure of reason). -- If one is only concerned with the United States or Canada, our main tasks in medical response will be containment. Canada and the United States will be vigilant to accurately identify those who bear the virus, to medically quarantine the infected, and latterly to treat the infected with what means we have. If one thinks of Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea ... well the "hoax" speaks for itself. This is the most serious outbreak since Ebola was identified back in the seventies. It is a scourge, a menace, a killing disease above all ... If we (US/Canada/Europe) in the West want to ignore Ebola in Africa, hoping that by ignoring it it will go away ... I would suggest this is myopic and extremely dangerous. Of course, the public health bodies of the USA/Europe/Canada are helping the African nations to contain the spread. In the scenario suggested by Jerry's 'I don't care' -- where there are no facts, no worries since it is all hoaxed -- I can see the dangerous implications of that shrug. Luckily, Jerry's head in the sand approach is opposite to the actual measures taken. His arguments are irrelevant and have no impact to the actual measures being taken and being contemplated. I don't understand this. I cannot know Jerry's motivations, only speculate on the reason he posts nonsense. If I am in the group who has insulted Jerry in this thread, I do not consider my mission accomplished. My missions are related to reason, how we know what we know, how knowledge claims are examined ... how dangerous is Ebola. "Not pleasant but won't kill ..." Hmmm. This doesn't leave much room to discuss the actual measures taken, whether you support them or understand them or not.

You do not believe that viruses can cause human disease, Jerry, nor that diseases can mutate and adapt to infecting across species? Viruses can have a role in causing diseases but are over rated. On the topic of Ebola, you say (or appear to say) that Ebola is a 'hoax.' I am interested in why you think this, if you do. If you think that the dangers of this hemorrhagic fever is nil or has been sensationalized, there's a discussion to be had. Perhaps, in your own words, you could explain how and to what extent Ebola (and the current epidemic) is a hoax. As near as I can figure, one main difference between me and most people is most people look upon government and government agencies as near infallible sources of information. For example most people will guote FDA and expect that to be the end of rational discussion, because whatever FDA says is true. I look upon FDA as an organization that exists for the purpose of telling lies. I call FDA the Fraud and Deception Administration. So quoting FDA (as an authority) to me won't work. Okay. You reject out of hand anything from the US Food and Drug agency. This to me is a silly and unwarranted rejection. I mean, to examine critically according to the best principles of inquiry is one thing. To sweep all FDA work off the table, to put the entirety in the trash -- this is to me an error in thinking. It is Dr Blaylock who touts the cancer cures, and my reference was to the raft of nonsense he propounds. Since he is presently your go-to guy for Ebola (even though he hasn't written about Ebola to date), I brought forward some of his nonsense. I thought it might cause you to think ("Hmmm, Blaylock believes in the chemtrail conspiracy, and a Soviet plot to introduce viruses. So ... maybe he is not the best authority on Ebola, since he doesn't talk about Ebola. Oh, what the hell, let's just copy-paste a five thousand word plug of Blaylock that has nothing to do with Ebola. Then I will slag the FDA, all government, all health 'knowledge' except for Dr Gerson. And I am done.") Under the B, Ebola, Under the I, Ebola. Ebola Gay. Ebola is the ISIS of viruses. Ebola is a Soviet plot. Ebola is not interesting. Ebola Beebola. -- The FDA has FUCK ALL to do with Ebola. It means he no longer practices as an MD. He does not see patients. Jerry, this is an unsatisfactory response. You are on record claiming that Ebola is a hoax. You can't explain the reasoning that led you to this conclusion -- meaning you won't defend your particular beliefs about Ebola. Weak reasoning. Weak argumentation. Shibboleths about the evul gummint. No rational framework to guide others to reject or accept particulars of your claims. My tentative conclusion is that you know fuck all about Ebola, and that discussion with you is futile on the subject.

Wow, three OL posts and you move on to be an expert on humanity. I tend to appreciate Greg as a personality (he epitomizes self-reliance and details how to achieve a personal Mulligan's Hidden Valley) but skip by his religious dogma, and his awkward jumbles of Christophilism and Karma. Although I have serious disagreements with him on a number of other issues, I will take his side here against beginner invective. Amateur.

You do not believe that viruses can cause human disease, Jerry, nor that diseases can mutate and adapt to infecting across species? Viruses can have a role in causing diseases but are over rated. Jerry, I am not interested in your yammering about vaccines -- you have shown yourself to be ignorant and uneducable. On the topic of Ebola, you say (or appear to say) that Ebola is a 'hoax.' I am interested in why you think this, if you do. If you think that the dangers of this hemorrhagic fever is nil or has been sensationalized, there's a discussion to be had. Perhaps, in your own words, you could explain how and to what extent Ebola (and the current epidemic) is a hoax. As for your following copy-paste slug: can you summarize what its says about Ebola? If I wanted to read Dr Blaylock, and if I considered him some authority, I would search his wisdom down. As it is, he is not here, you are. Dr Blaylock, for those who aren`t familiar with his stellar neuroscience career (he is now retired), is a believer in the Chemtrail Conspiracy. That is right. Jerry's go-to guy on Ebola is a believer in chemtrails. This puts his beliefs about aspartame and vaccinology and dental amalgam using fish oil and supplements to beat influenza ... in the same zany pot, in my opinion. Jerry, why is it that you prefer crackpot themes?

You do not believe that viruses can cause human disease, Jerry, nor that diseases can mutate and adapt to infecting across species? Are you wanting us to accept your idea that Ebola virus (one of several hemorrhagic fevers) is a complete hoax, or are you suggesting that alarmism about the dangers of Ebola transmission is akin to a hoax? If you weren't probably serious, I would have a laugh at your expense. Knowing how much nonsense you already believe, all I can say is that you have no cognitive filters to help you discern nonsense. Which is sad. Why you hang around an Objectivish, reason-centred forum is another mystery.

Dean's first post in this thread mentioned Sandy Hook, 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombing ... and the beheading by ISIS of journalists ... emphasis added. All were, in Dean's conclusion, hoaxes, false-flag. I note especially his insistence that some unnamed faction of some unnamed power performed the ISIS 'beheddings' ... Here's something just coming out: Naomi Wolf has topped Dean's conclusion that the ISIS beheadings were 'staged' ... and topped his list of hoaxes by accusing the US government of importing Ebola into the USA for nefarious purposes, under cover of humanitarian assistance. (she even manages to finger the Scots independence vote as fraudulent) Wolf's arguments for these conclusions is examined at Vox.com: The Vox article includes a screenshot of a since-deleted Facebook post. What might explain this paranoiac, even manic 'connecting the dots' from Wolf? I have been boning up on WTC7 controversies in order to offer Dean (and other conspiracy believers) some counter-evidence to his conclusions on that issue. I thought I would put up Wolf's unusual beliefs for comment ... I note that today on Facebook she is quoting from Global Research, an outlet definitely in the Nutterzone. That story was built on an article from Russia's RIANovosti site. It surely would have been easy for Wolf to find confirmation herself, as in this BBC story. It is so weird to me that she skims by details and entailments, in this small story and in her other delusional retellings. I think something has gone wrong in Wolf's reasoning. She seems to be zooming from one 'fake' to another, with a huge confirmation bias contributing to cognitive error. I think I will have to dig out my copy of The Paranoid Style in American Politics, as well as do a re-read of the Michael Shermer article, Why People Believe Conspiracy Theories: Why people who believe in one conspiracy are prone to believe others. Here's an interesting excerpt from the Shermer piece: ___________________ ** full, creepy, fascinating paper here: Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories

Thanks for the kind and thoughtful words about me, Mike. I think I am less of a jerk now then when I first posted to Objectivish boards (oh my, can it be) nine years ago. and probably a lot less funny, less entertaining. I can't speak for Jonathan, but I do know that on at least one subject we have deeply differing views (climate argy bargy). I am fine with his rhetorical upper-range, though it may break delicate glass. I'm not ready to conclude he means harm, though. I don't think he has an ugly heart, but a passionate one, a principled one. I can't condemn every angry outburst without fettering my own. Your words of analysis and your general conclusions are also welcome. I do hope Dean reads and responds, and can entertain objections to his reasoning. I am disappointed that he skipped my last comments entirely, but he doesn't owe me anything. Please don't think I carry any 'pissed-offedness' forward from our encounters here. I forgive almost anyone their tone and tartness if the core of their arguments is sound.

Dean, have you read much material that challenges the notion of 'freefall'? There are indeed plenty of claims of demolition being the cause of WTC7's collapse, and more than plenty claims surrounding 'freefall.' But, have you examined any/many/some 'contra' materials? My point being that millions of words have been recorded, thousands of websites have been constructed -- there is a massive amount of material both pro-conspiracy (demolition) and anti-conspiracy (collapse). Point: have you assessed counter-arguments? Have you seen or read arguments where the claims of 'freefall' are examined and refuted? What do you say is the rate of freefall, Dean? Or rather, what is the actual speed/distance of the 'freefall' that you witness or assume when you see videos of the collapse? How did you calculate the rate or speed of the WTC7 collapse? There are many many more such questions that suggest themselves to me. Regardless of your answer, are you willing to concede that you could be wrong? And will you say you'll give a fair shake to any particular WTC7 information I or others might bring forward? I think I have left out any borderline 'ad hominem' or insult. I don't know if you think I operate on good faith or not, but I hope you honestly answer, if not for my benefit, then for the benefit of other OL readers. I hope you might want to either more firmly support your beliefs -- or give the erstwhile official/accepted accounts a 'fair shake.' If you do choose to answer in detail, I'd be happy to discuss why I believe you are mistaken in your conclusions about WTC7. I'd be happy to bring forward material for examination. (I'd also hope you would keep strictly to the topic of WTC7's destruction.) _____________________ Anticipating Dean is open to examining 'official/accepted' accounts of the collapse of WTC7, I give a link to the NIST Q&A that explains its findings in re 'freefall' ...

I read the pre-deletion original comments, Brant, and they made sense to me. All is well. Forgive me for using you as a strike-pad for my incendiaries. Do we really have to argue about the reality of the Boston Bombing? Maybe not. Maybe better to have let the irrational scenario sink due it its massive superstructure. Still, I felt personally disgusted at the upended victimology, at the contempt for the traumatized. It seemed mean and irrational and worth a most spirited reaction .... I am now mostly just sad. Sad that Dean is where's he's at on this issue. Sad I can't help.

I am sorry if I horrified anyone with those photos. I've added spoilers to my earlier comment. I quite agree that photos are not arguments. I first responded to Dean's nasty, ignorant comment ... "Where is the blood? Shouldn't that black lady in the red and white shirt be covered in blood after giving the amputee a blowjob (or whatever she was doing between his "legs")? Where is the blood? I gave him images of blood, which he said were faked. When I asked him what he would say to the lady pictured who lost her legs, he said, "Sorry, next time use more smoke and more fake blood." I am sorry that my disgust led to posting more horrifying images of the Boston carnage. ************************************** Brant, if we are all non-expert in such things as crime-scene footage analysis, would this mean we should be agnostic about what we do see? Moreover, accepting that you, me, Ba'al, Mikee, Jonathan and Dean are non-expert, does this mean only that 'something happened'? Don't we get to investigate using the sharpest tools of reason? I mean, can you tell us what really happened in Boston that day of death, Brant? Would you honestly deny the deaths, deny the maimings, the amputations, the bereaved? Will you deny that Jeff Baumann lost his legs in the bombing? tell us that the explosion was fake itself? tell us all about how the hospitals faked their response, how all the EMT personnel are actors/liars? In other words, are you hinting that you (and the rest of us) are on the whole incapable of coming to a well-reasoned conclusion about the events in Boston? (What's the freaking point of the Kennedy red herring? Are you going to tell us that we cannot know what happened in Boston because you don't know what happened in Dallas? You can't come to a reasoned conclusion about Dean's claims without Boston autopsy photos? Yikes.) Five years from now, ask him about the bombing and what he thinks of it, and he'll probably calmly tell you some reasonable bits of information that he has learned about it, without any memory of his batshit crazy stuff. Well, I am glad you have hope or faith that Dean will return from down the rabbit hole, where one can believe six impossible things before breakfast. I am not so sanguine, as it seems there is some crucial missing cognition undermining Dean's arguments, missing applications. One such application is the useful Occam's Razor. It is as if Dean does not find the multiplied entailments of the 'hoax' scenario at all unusual or extraordinary. These don't appear to be noticed, let alone considered in his arguments so far. Yet these multiple entailments make the explanatory hypothesis of hoax grotesquely complex. Instead of the most parsimonious explanation -- that two bombs exploded, injuring and maiming and killing -- we get an enormous cast and crew all working like clockwork to fake the entire event and aftermath. I mean, how does he explain that the amputated, injured, maimed (in this case, Jeff Baumman**)? Er, it seems he thinks Jeff was a total fake. Every drop of blood was fake. His shocking appearance in the famous photos was faked. He was a previous amputee and every photo evidence that he had legs before the bombing is fake. Every other 'injured' co-conspirator had a fake pre-bombing persona. Every leader of the plot enforced complete adhesion. No leaks. No outraged whistle-blowers from the inside. No disgusted defectors. No suspicious observers report contemporaneously. Nobody from a hospital that remarked upon the fakery they were forced to perform (fake amputations, fake injury care, fake rehabilitation, fake fake fakety fake). Each purported hospital admission accompanied by further ramifications involving lying family members, lying doctors, lying nurses and lying media completely captive of "Them." Is it not unwarranted to assume that these ramifications can survive Occam's Razor? Is it not much more likely that the simplest explanation is true in this case -- especially when the ramifications are so immense and complex? I believe that the more credible account of the events in Boston is one which does not spin off multiple entailments. Each one of those entailments adds only bizarre nonsense to a paranoid thesis, to my eyes. And if Dean cannot discern which 'evidence' is spurious and which argument is specious now, then how can he come to more rational conclusions later? Jonathan I hope you are right and I am wrong, very wrong. I hope Dean snaps out of his infatuation with nonsense. Maybe one by one he will examine each belief with the full complement of rationality he has been blessed with. At the moment, he doesn't seem willing or agreeable to even quote or cite objections to his theorizing. I don't believe he has said to himself: "I might be wrong. I should carefully consider the counterarguments that have been made to the scenarios of 'Hoax.'" Maybe one way to help him recover his reason is to quote from the strongest arguments against his reading of events. I would do this if I didn't think he had an idée fixe. If he had said, "Okay, show me where I am wrong ... " then I would happily do the work to help him re-think his Marathon beliefs. ___________________ ** Dean's disgusting comments about Jeff Baumann sneeringly suggest that this man in the famous photo is a conspirator, and we who disagree are all "sheep" ... To that, I say You wouldn't have the balls to confront this man with your claims.

What you are doing is disgusting, Dean. You obviously haven't done the necessary work to examine the Marathon hoax claims. I don't know why you specifically call out the maimed as actors, and I cannot explain how you became endowed with expertise in decoding disaster footage. What is disgusting is the victim-snuffing. You deny the deaths and you deny the injuries and you deny every single witness to the events. They are participants in a hoax. You deny their suffering. That is foul to me. I find it deeply depressing that you have given up the tools of reason to investigate and debunk these fearsome tales. I am shocked, too, still, that you could not see the delusional reasoning at the sites you cite, It's as if you read them once and did not seek counter-arguments, other critical sites and information. There is something wrong here, Dean. Your reason is not working on the Marathon issue. It's not just that you are incurious about the rational arguments made against the nutterzone crap on Marathon. It's also that you don't know when you are wrong. How would you know if you are wrong here, Dean? I won't respond to you on these subjects. I think you need some help getting at the truth, or at least some knuckling down to do a critical review of your own. Reason should instruct you that the ramifications of a hoax in this instance mean that many hundreds of people were deeply implicated. That is where you can go crazy, imaging the entire scenario of the Marathon bombing, now under the control of a Hollywood "them." I hope you haven't gone permanently crazy already. This side-thread deserves exile in the Garbage Pile.

I wrote: "Jerry, the martyr ploy and the propagation of Truther nonsense on the anniversary of 9/11 revolts me." Disgusting. The link you provide goes to a crazy place. I think you are in a crazy place yourself. The problem as I see it is that you have loaded only 'conspiracy' tales into your mind, and you haven't done due diligence in putting the tales to a test. This means you only can see the conspiracy 'evidence' and have no room in your mind to contest it. Your filters are broken. I find this very very sad. Regarding 'where is the blood' -- there is no way to engage this question. People died, people were maimed, limbs were shredded, amputations were necessary. People died, Dean. Two bombs injured 180 people. I can't express how sad your falling down the rabbit hole appears to me. Here's some blood for you, you ghoul: This lady lost her legs. What do you say to her, Dean? What do you say to the other people maimed? What do you say to the witnesses and victims of the explosions? You don't believe them, I guess. An enormously complicated hoax with hundreds of actors and scene-dressers and producers and blood-drippers is more believable, it seems.

I aim to be factual, rational and friendly where possible. I keep my interventions fluid, depending on what strikes me as remarkable. I have long nursed an interest in urban issues, especially transportation. I am competent to give historical and economic notes on streetcars and the rash of projects across the USA. You can think of me as a kind of sad hobbyist/trainspotter. I mean no harm. Here's another Streetview rendering, this time of Portland's South Watefront district, featuring those ribbons of steel at the very end of their loop. Click through to explore this shiny new nabe's transformation. You are somewhat unpredictable. I do write for my own sake first of all, secondly to inform, thirdly to entertain. Perhaps the next time you think of streetcars you will think of a gamble made with these old tools, that they will spark renaissance along the rails as in Portland, Toronto, Seattle ... With recycling and renewables, I figure you knew enough to recognize the economic value in salvage and re-use, and so tried to give a picture of rich-world industrial advancement. I thought your claims were weak in a couple of instances, and that you might be happy with a bland corrective on a couple of points. The wider OL audience can thumb me up or down according to their wont, according to their estimation of my utility. Since I am my own best audience, I am satisfied just having a comment finished and up on the internets! You could think of me as a rather blandly rational volunteer fact-checker who tries to add value.

Blame Canada! Toronto did not retire its streetcar fleet as did every other North American city but Boston, Philadelphia and San Francisco. Here's a picture of the new long and low streetcars that are going to replace all the older vehicles. Blame also Portland, Oregon. Before federal dollars were available for streetcars, that city built a four-mile long line through its old and tired 'warehouse district' (Pearl District). That district boomed, populated, and led to a still-going re-construction of the area. Billions of dollars of construction and investment were leveraged from the ribbons of steel say its promoters and analysts... (though see CATO's harrumphing article on these dollars and the subsidies and urban philosophy behind it) What attracts all the other cities in America to build streetcar lines or networks? Overwhelmingly, in each case, the cities and communities involved believe they will recreate the real-estate boom experienced in Portland (the Portland system is expanding, too). Seattle was the first out of the barn to mimic Portland's streetcar, and there a boom did also occur (they too are expanding their streetcar and light rail system). Here's a cool Google Streetview image of a newly urbanized corner on Seattle's Lake Union streetcar route. Click the image to go the corner, and move the slider on the inset image. You can see the entire vicinity grow from ruins to beautiful modern neighbourhood. In Tucson, as I understand it, the new streetcar is touted as largely responsible for a surge in real-estate ventures. In all the other cities, who knows if a line of rail in the street can in every case lead to re-urbanization? If I were to bet, I'd say Cincinnati, Dallas, Tucson, Seattle, and Charlotte will be the most successful in spurring more intense development. The cities that will fail to see urbanization will likely be those who, like Salt Lake City, simply laid down rails without a coherent plan. Have you ridden the Tucson streetcar, Brant? If you go along its route you should be able to report if the pace of re-development quickens over the coming years or if the touted benefits were a hoax. Buses are not attractive to new ridership compared to a streetcar ... they rattle and bump and lurch. They get old quickly. Streetcars last forty years or more, require less maintenance than buses, and have a permanence no bus line can claim. The biggest reason Toronto did not swap out its streetcars for buses is capacity. That single new train carries more that three buses. I should mention that Toronto has embarked upon a further rail extension plan, and will lay about fifty miles of new track for 'light rail' ... All that fact and opinion on streetcars aside, and all the bumf about plans, investment and growth aside -- the US experiment with reintroducing fixed rails in its streets will continue, and I'd love to be able to be in that future where rails reconquer the urban world. I'd like to see the full fifty mile Washington DC system built out and pumping. I wonder if Dagny would like it ... Each of these concepts are distinct in my mind. Renewable energy is an historical fact, and a part of economic development across the world. Think Hydroelectric ... all the way from massive dams to micro-hydro. Think of massive wind and solar farms. In some advanced nations (like Germany) renewables produce a sizable and growing fraction of supplies. Recycling is just that. If something can be squeezed to give more value than a kilo of raw garbage, then it can go through the consumption cycle one or more times. It makes what would otherwise be refuse into derivative commodities. (one funny example of recycling as economically wise is the story of one of China's richest women, Zhang Yin. She rather smartly imported massive amounts of American garbage (in the form of cardboard and other paper waste) and recycled it into a product to sell back!) This is not true, Brant. Although my region has not reached the heights of Kamikatsu or Edmonton, garbage in does not mean garbage out. Our regional dump produces methane, soil, compost, metals, plastics, and so on. It produces electricity from incinerators and recovers further elements from the ash. You seem to be suggesting that separated materials do not generally go to a recycling plant, but instead are dumped into the same piles as undifferentiated trash and crap. Surely you know this is not true on the whole ... Kamikatsu does seem to have gone entirely mad. From "The Town Without Trash": In Kamikatsu, there’s no such thing as trash. You won’t find a single garbage bin in any of the town’s homes, and there’s not a dump anywhere within driving distance. Instead, the resourceful residents must compost all waste from their food, and sort other trash into 34 separate categories, with sections for plastic bottles, razor blades, Styrofoam, and various other paraphernalia. The crazy part? Most locals actually seem to like the extreme recycling process. Kikue Nii, one resident, claims that the town’s no-waste policy makes her more mindful of what she’s using, and helps her to take advantage of every last scrap. “I think I produce less waste because I have to compost it,” Why would someone go to the lengths of burying undifferentiated masses of trash -- and then only later attempt to dig and make money from it? It makes much more sense to salvage, filter, pick, process and pack into bundles or bins, scavenge and sift -- and recover value before it all goes into a pit or pile or furnace. I mentioned Edmonton (capital of the socialist hellhole Alberta). It is probably the most advanced system for waste management in North America. Here's a link to the breadth of their programme.** The Dutch and the Norwegians have probably reached the acme of integrated waste management. Costs of running what recycling trucks? You must live somewhere where recycling is mandated and handled by the city?town? I don't so I guess I can't relate.As far as your last statement, I too have wondered about landscapes being future mining sites. ... Especially if we could figure out a way to use old plastic as fuel, that would be awesome. I just don't see the point in dumping shit in a hole, and putting off recycling to a distant future. Why not make money now? PS -- thanks for that analysis of the Bullshit video, Derek! __________________ ** Edmonton is miles ahead of the Vancouver region. Their system squeezes its garbage until it gives up its value. From Citylab: Edmonton, a Canadian city of 877,926, is renowned for its highly integrated and innovative waste-management system. Built on a long-term vision of using waste as a resource instead of burying it in landfills, the system is focused on sustainability and environmental protection. Edmonton’s Waste Management Centre is a 233-hectare site that encompasses the world's largest collection of integrated state-of-the-art facilities for solid waste management. This includes the largest composting facility of its type in North America, a materials recovery facility for sorting recyclables, an integrated processing and transfer facility, a leachate treatment facility, an electronics waste recycling facility, a construction-and-demolition waste recycling facility, a landfill gas plant that generates sufficient energy to power 4600 homes, and an advanced energy research facility. Canada’s first waste-to-biofuels facility for municipal waste also opened recently at this site. These facilities, combined with efficient waste collection systems and community engagement, enable the City of Edmonton to divert up to 60 percent of residential waste from landfills, with a goal of 90 percent when the waste-to-biofuels facility is fully operational in 2016.

Nah - jet fuel - then an incendiary mortar round... And then what? Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, Philadelphia, D.C., Milwaukee... never have so many needed us for a creative solution. Hey, hold on one minute..... Too late for that. There may be some irony involved. The last call for weapons of mass destruction was in favour of neutron-bombing the Arab/Muslim world (or some smaller nasty aspect of it). Disposing of the population of the cities named ... well, this may be the dream in somebody's heart, but I doubt it. The rather queer addition by Wolf seems to be that a firestorm of death is called for on a larger scale than merely drowning or burning everyone in Detroit ... I can't parse the reasoning behind nor the impetus for such funny remarks.