Sunday, January 1, 2012

Jan. 1 - Jan. 7, 2012 Discussions

The main comment this morning is about the Anthrax Truthers continuing to attempt to show that Ivins' "unexplained" hours in his lab alone during the evenings just before the anthrax attacks were actually fully explained by Ivins having to work with test animals during those times.

Their "evidence" is - as usual - a flurry of irrelevant documents which show nothing, but which they imply are proof that Ivins was working with animals.

The facts seem to show that animal handlers took care of mundane tasks like feeding the animals, cleaning their cages. Did they also check on the animals to see if they were all still alive, and make a note on a cage card if any were dead? The documents aren't clear about that.

Documents seem to indicate that veterinarians would do necropsies, NOT principal investigators like Bruce Ivins. For awhile, it appeared that the Anthrax Truthers were arguing that Ivins would do the necropsies (animal autopsies).

Documents seem to indicate that either the animal handlers disposed of the dead animals, or whoever did it just put the animal in an autoclave bag, put the bag into the autoclave and then turned the autoclave on as he or she was leaving for the day. The autoclave would go through its cycle and turn itself off when done.

The Anthrax Truthers seemed to argue that Ivins would stand around for the entire autoclave cycle, and that could account for some of his "unexplained" time in his lab in the evening.

The arguments are becoming standard Anthrax Truther arguments: Prove the negative! Prove that it was totally impossible for Ivins to have been tending to animals during those "unexplained" hours! And, if you can't prove it, that means that Muslims were behind the anthrax attacks. (They, of course, have no proof implicating Muslim terrorists, but they don't require proof for their beliefs, they only require proof for other people's claims.)

A second subject for discussion this week would be the Russians who continue to access my site in a very strange way. It's still an unsolved mystery.


  1. Why do you think the Russians are bothering you?

    Why do you think they find this website/topic interesting?

    And Happy New Year to you and other FBI truthers.

    My verification word is shills (honest injun).

  2. OTL asked, "Why do you think the Russians are bothering you?"

    I don't think they're after me. They're doing something that affects my web site, but I can't figure out what they're trying to do. It's probably affecting other sites, too, but I don't have any proof of that. I was kind of hoping that by mentioning the problem on my site, someone would respond with information about identical experiences they've had.

    Yesterday, however, I did notice a site where someone asked how to prevent people from using the HEAD command. It might be someone who has the same problem as I have. I'm going to do some research on it this morning. If the research proves fruitful, I'll put a comment about it on my site.


  3. The most amazing thing about the Russians and Kazakhs is: they're not Russians or Kazakhs!

  4. Since Mister Lake went a smidge off topic, I'll return the favor: Begala's predictions for the year are:
    1. Herman Cain will get a contract with Fox News Channel. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich will not.

    2. A third-party candidate will get more than 7 percent of the popular vote for president.

    3. John Boehner will be toppled from his post as speaker before the 2012 elections.

    4. Democrats will re-take the House, hold the Senate and Obama will be reelected; a stunning rebuke of the Tea Party.

    5. George W. Bush will not give a prime-time speech at the GOP convention. Dick Cheney will.

    6. At the GOP convention a speaker will use some Spanish phrases in an appeal to Hispanic voters. He or she will be booed.

    7. At the Democratic convention a speaker will use some Spanish phrases also. No one will notice.

    8. The Texas Longhorn football team will finish in the top five nationally. (Then again, I make that prediction every year.)
    I don't much care about/have an opinion on 1, 2 6, 7, or 8. But #4 is completely wet:

    4. Democrats will re-take the House, hold the Senate and Obama will be reelected; a stunning rebuke of the Tea Party. (not even Democratic polls are showing that)
    Wrong on every count of point 4! And #'s 2 and 3 are absolutely wrong too! And WHAT 3rd party candidate(pt. 2) will get 7%?!? Why Mister Lake thinks Begala sharp is beyond me: what did Begala predict about Ted Kennedy's senate seat?, the Governorship of New Jersey? The 2010 Congressional elections? He's a partisan who can't SEPARATE his preferences from his analysis. And we'll see that in November (when I'll try to resurrect this thread!).
    As to the substance, I think the demurrals varied: Daniels didn't want to subject his wife to the ordeal, Barbour wasn't getting any traction, Jeb Bush figured the Bush name would be less tarnished in 2016 or 2020, etc. Begala's argument is too sweeping here.
    My prediction: Romney in a cakewalk!

  5. I once rode up in an elevator with George Romney, so I know the family. ;-)

    I think Mitt is too stiff to be elected President. He seems like he's trying too hard. People are creeped out by how hard he seems to be working to get minimal acceptance.

    I don't have much of an opinion on any of Paul Begala's predictions.

    This is probably just wishful thinking:

    4. Democrats will re-take the House, hold the Senate and Obama will be reelected; a stunning rebuke of the Tea Party.

    But, if the economy continues to improve ...

    I think this prediction by Michael Tomasky will prove to be true:

    8. The Mayan calendar is wrong.

    If it isn't, no one will ever be able to say I was wrong about that prediction. :-)

    The Newsweek article I mentioned on my web site was about the entire field of Republican candidates. Each seems worse than the next. The only guy who I'd allow into my home is Jon Huntsman. He's the only one who seems somewhat trustworthy. Ranked by screwball-ness, I rank the original batch of 8 this way (1 = worst, 8 = least worst):

    1. Michele Bachmann
    2. Herman Cain
    3. Ron Paul
    4. Newt Gingrich
    5. Rick Santorum
    6. Rick Perry
    7. Mitt Romney
    8. Jon Huntsman