I suppose for the same reason that O'Reilly and Hannity are roaming the airwaves making fools of themselves for the benefit of Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal.
I've never been able to develop a taste for federal harrassment.
Oddly, they've never asked, though if they did, I'd surely decline. A) I can't stand the sound of my own voice, and B) I'm agoraphobic.
Now whatever you might think of the politics of O'Rourke, at least he makes a half decent crack at presenting a certain kind of ideology. A guy doesn't need a PhD in political science to figure out where you're coming from, so you could start dispelling the myths that the `right leaning` media might pass out about those who would ascribe to a different `world-view`.
I think primitive peoples should be allowed the comfort of their myths.
Probably not. It never has in the past, anyway
The trouble with revolutions is revolutionaries. They're people too, and tend to behave just as badly
as their oppressors when they get in charge.
I'm keeping a pretty low profile.
There's a wonderful book called "Manufacturing Consent" that takes a look at the "liberal bias" in media,
particularly your hated New York Times.
keep Cockburn and Baerwald on the sidelines, if either of them went up against Horowitz - we might have to start dealing with facts.
I'm flattered, but remain agoraphobic.
Speaking of learning, take a look at this,
The transcript that follows is taken from the June 9, 1969 Senate testimony of Dr. Donald MacArthur, a high-level Defense Department biological research administrator.
------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1970
United States Senate Library
HEARINGS before a SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Ninety-First Congress
First Session
Subcommittee on Department of Defense
George H. Mahon, Texas, Chairman
Robert L.F. Sikes, Florida, Glenard P. Lipscomb, California
Jamie D. Whitten, Mississippi William E. Minshall, Ohio
George W. Andrews, Alabama, John J. Rhodes, Arizona
Daniel J. Flood, Pennsylvania Glenn R. Davis, Wisconsin
John M. Slack, West Virginia, Joseph P. Addabbo, New York
Frank E. Evans, Colorado
Temporarily assigned H.B. 15090
PART 5
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Department of the Army
Statement of Director, Advanced Research Project Agency
Statement of Director, Defense Research and Engineering
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1969
UNITED STATES SENATE LIBRARY
129
TUESDAY, JULY 1, 1969
SYNTHETIC BIOLOGICAL AGENTS
There are two things about the biological agent field I would like to
mention. One is the possibility of technological surprise. Molecular biology
is a field that is advancing very rapidly and eminent biologists believe
that within a period of 5 to 10 years it would be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired.
MR. SIKES. Are we doing any work in that field?
DR. MACARTHUR. We are not.
MR. SIKES. Why not? Lack of money or lack of interest?
DR. MACARTHUR. Certainly not lack of interest.
MR. SIKES. Would you provide for our records information on what would be
required, what the advantages of such a program would be. The time and the
cost involved?
DR. MACARTHUR. We will be very happy to. The information follows:
The dramatic progress being made in the field of molecular biology led us to investigate the relevance of this field of science to biological warfare. A small group of experts considered this matter and provided the following
observations:
1. All biological agents up the the present time are representatives of
naturally occurring disease, and are thus known by scientists throughout the world. They are easily available to qualified scientists for research,
either for offensive or defensive purposes.
2. Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.
3. A research program to explore the feasibility of this could be completed
in approximately 5 years at a total cost of $10 million.
4. It would be very difficult to establish such a program. Molecular biology
is a relatively new science. There are not many highly competent scientisis
in the field., almost all are in university laboratories, and they are
generally adequately supported from sources other than DOD. However, it was considered possible to initiate an adequate program through the National Academy of sciences - National Research Council (NAS-NRC, and tentative plans were made to initiate the program. However decreasing funds in CB, growing criticism of the CB program., and our reluctance to involve the NAS NRC in such a controversial endeavor have led us to postpone it for the past 2 years.
It is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe such research should not be undertaken lest it lead to yet another method of massive killing of large populations. On the other hand, without the sure
scientific knowledge that such a weapon is possible, and an understanding of the ways it could be done. there is little that can be done to devise
defensive measures. Should an enemy develop it there is little doubt that
this is an important area of potential military technological inferiority in
which there is no adequate research program.
A new biological weapon which would be "refractory" to the human immune system. In this usage, refractory means essentially to demolish.
Yrs,
David Baerwald
