Search This Site


Saturday, April 10, 2010

Questions About AIDS Resurface

A Terrible Mistake
[H.P. Albarelli, Jr. has courageously (and reluctanty, by his lede) compiled some uncomfortable questions about the origins of AIDS. While I have no interest in turning this site into another or, Hank's work on the Kennedy assassination and surrounding events lends a certain credibility to his observations in this new area, and I am obliged to provide a forum.

Check back here for updates as they may come.

Regarding the Kennedy conspiracies (and look to this site for upcoming Parts 2 and 3 of his further explorations of Oswald, et. al., Part 1 here) - I have read a number of post-90's CIA-dump analyses of the events surrounding November 1963. The closest to Albarelli's work, in my opinion, is the 960 page tome coauthored by Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann, Ultimate Sacrifice: John and Robert Kennedy, the Plan for a Coup in Cuba, and the Murder of JFK. These authors, however, come to a different conclusion than I did reading the very facts they presented. Waldron and Hartmann - again in my opinion - take some tortuous paths on the way to presenting the Mafia as the perpetrators, with the CIA and other state services being duped into the assassination (or at least its cover-up), the logic being that the mob knew that the investigation would be shut down due to unpalatable facts about its conspiring with the US Government against Castro's Cuba. Sorry - mob dupes CIA? Not buying that. Anyway, buy Hank's book.]
I don’t like having to write this article. I don’t like even thinking about it...
- H.P. Albarelli, Jr.

by H.P. Albarelli Jr.

I don’t like having to write this article. I don’t like even thinking about it, but over the past few months its subject has come up repeatedly. Many television and radio hosts who have interviewed me about my new book, A TERRIBLE MISTAKE: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA’s Secret Cold War Experiments, have, on their own, brought up the subject of AIDS and Fort Detrick and the connection between the two. Nearly the entire ten years I worked on the book, this subject consistently loomed in the background like some malevolent poltergeist, and was essentially considered unspeakable by practically everyone I interviewed. Now things are different.

Just a few days ago, one radio host, who had actually read my entire book, asked about the many trips various Fort Detrick bacteriologists and biochemists took throughout the 1950s, 1960s, and beyond to locations in Africa. Trips were to locations like the Belgian Congo and Burundi and French Equatorial Africa. A few media hosts have remarked about the thousands of rhesus monkeys and chimpanzees that Fort Detrick went through in their countless experiments during these same years; resulting in so many mutilated and dead primates that one former Army scientist, Dr. Henry Eigelsbach, told me that sometimes their bodies had to be “scooped up with a back-hoe and loaded into dump trucks” and then carted off for disposal and incineration.

Only yesterday, a very well informed radio host in California, Cary Harrison, at KPFK-FM, asked me about well-documented reports concerning the 1969 testimony of a high-level Pentagon biological warfare official before the U.S. House of Representatives.

Nobody in their right mind wants to think or believe that the American government had a hand in producing the dreadful disease AIDS, certainly not me. My father, as a dedicated and conscientious histologist, worked for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in the 1950s, and went on to devote his life to helping people in any way he could. He would have never done anything to hurt anyone, yet now there is strong evidence that other scientists with the U. S. Army may have done just that. Before his recent death, I asked my father about these reports. He sadly shook his head, and said, “I don’t know what’s happened to this country. I don’t understand it at all. It’s not the country I went to war for; it’s not the same country I was willing to die for.” My father was always a confident man. It distressed me to see him bewildered, but I too was bewildered. I didn’t at all like thinking about Fort Detrick and AIDS.

On July 1, 1969, a high-ranking Pentagon biological warfare official, Dr. Donald MacArthur, appearing before the Defense Department Appropriations Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives, told the assembled elected officials that “dramatic progress being made in the field of molecular biology [by Army researchers at Fort Detrick and elsewhere] led [the Army] 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 to the present time [1969] are representative of naturally occurring disease, and 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 when we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.”

Dr. MacArthur ‘s testimony went on and he informed the subcommittee that a research program to explore the feasibility of developing such a disease, “a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could be acquired,” would take only about 5 years to complete, and would cost $10 million.

As readers may expect, the Army that year was given its fully requested appropriation. As to whether or not the new biological disease Dr. MacArthur spoke of went into production is unknown, but former Army scientists with Fort Detrick’s Special Operation Division (SOD), speaking under terms of anonymity, say the program had actually already begun several years prior to 1969 under a reformatted Project MK/NAOMI. That project was the ultra-secret joint CIA-SOD program that was organized in late 1950. One former SOD researcher said, “The idea of a man-made disease that the immune system couldn’t handle had been proposed much earlier in the late 1950s with a fair amount of field work conducted in the process.” When I attempted to interview other SOD researchers about the manufacturing of an AIDS-like virus at Fort Detrick people clammed up and shook their heads. Said one microbiologist, “I can’t discuss that. You know as well as I do that if I said anything at all about that it would be like putting a gun to my head.” Said another coyly, “We had ability to do practically anything we wanted to do back then; to create any diseases we wanted to, but what we did and did not do is not a subject I can discuss. Lets just say that nothing was beyond our reach.” Answers such as these provided me with little satisfaction or comfort. I became increasingly uneasy about the smugness of some of the replies. When some replies were made along with what I considered terribly racially-biased remarks, I often wished I had never brought the subject up.


At about the same time as retro-virus work began, Army researchers at Fort Detrick began intensive research into what it dubbed “ethnic weapons.” These were chemical and biological weapons targeted at various and specific ethnic groups. When I first encountered the term in a conversation with a former colleague of Frank Olson and inquired as to what it meant, he explained, “Weapons aimed at selected ethnic groups. Like Blacks who are particularly susceptible to certain blood diseases, weapons like that for example.” Despite the vagueness of the explanation, I understood.

I was astonished to learn that the Army was conducting research in this area, and soon encountered another scientist who spoke about the subject. I asked where was this research conducted? Both Fort Detrick and Edgewood Arsenal, I was told, and on a few selected university campuses. Are human subjects involved? I asked. Servicemen and others, came the answer. Others? Selected people and groups in the field came the answer. I asked if experiments involved particular ethnic groups with other shared characteristics; for example, Caucasian homosexuals or Black homosexuals or homosexuals, in general? It could, certainly, was the reply.

“We know and understand that there are differences, innate differences, among certain groups of people due their ethnicity,” the former Army scientist said. “This presents certain vulnerabilities that can be exploited through the studied use of selected chemical and biological agents. Which in turn offers some really exciting possibilities… it’s not far fetched at all to think that we can selectively, and very affectively, attack targeted ethnic groups, inflicting measured damage ranging from incapacitation to death.”

The Army scientist I had interviewed drew my attention to an early 1970 paper written by Dr. Carl A. Larson. The paper, later the same year published by the United States Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, was simply titled, “Ethnic Weapons.” Larson was head of the Department of Human Genetics at the Institute of Genetics, University of Lund, Sweden. Widely published in medical journals in American and Europe, Larsen held a Licentiate degree from the Medical School of Lund University and was a licensed physician.

Dr. Larson’s paper proposes that differences in gene frequencies between ethnic groups serve as the basis for researching and developing an entirely new grouping of chemical and biological warfare agents—agents with the capabilities of incapacitating or killing a targeted population with ease thus sparing other groups within the targeted population. “For example, the Army scientist explained, “say we wanted to eliminate all those people of a certain ethnic group in a targeted city and we knew that this group was highly susceptible to a certain form of cancer. We would incorporate that cancer into a weapon and through special delivery mechanisms induce the disease into those people.”

Dr. Larson’s paper cites a number of examples of “enzymatic reactions” or “enzyme polymorphisms.” He writes, “Clearly a relative advantage in one environment granted carriers of a mutant gene can be entirely void in another environment…. Careful analyses of enzymatic reaction patterns to a series of drugs are underway, and we may soon have a grid where new observations of this kind can be pinpointed.”

Larson explains that also examined are the possibilities “of the poison-provoking enzyme production, an individual adaptation observed in several instances.” He then cites one poison, milk, explaining that among Europeans intolerance to lactose, or milk sugar, “occurs as a rare recessive trait” but that “milk intolerance in various groups of non-Europeans began to accumulate, it was remembered that malnourished children in east Africa get diarrhea when treated with dried skimmed milk. Then, the enzyme lactase was found to lose its activity in the intestinal mucosa of African infants over the first four years of life.” I found Larson’s discussion of milk quite provocative because I knew from my research into Frank Olson’s work at Fort Detrick that some of it had centered on milk, Asians, and microbiology. However, everyone I interviewed on the subject refused to give me specifics about this phase of Olson’s research.

Interestingly, Dr. Larson also briefly mentions the drug, or “incapacitant”, known as BZ “which before the present renaissance as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) caused epidemic outbursts of Saint Anthony’s fire in the Dark Ages. With ditran-like compounds, BZ shares the capacity to produce transient toxic psychosis, sometimes compared to schizophrenia.”

Larson’s paper goes on, “Surrounded with clouds of secrecy, a systematic search for new incapacitating agents is going on in many laboratories. The general idea, as discussed in open literature, was originally that of minimum destruction.” Subtlety paying his respects to the Army’s earlier joint CIA top-secret drug experiment of 1951 in Pont St. Esprit, France, Larson’s paper states, “Psychochemicals would make it possible to paralyze temporarily entire population centers without damage to homes and other structures. In addition, with the small quantities required for full effect of modern incapacitating agents, logistics problems would be minute. The effective dose of BZ-type agents amounts to micrograms.”

Larson’s “Ethnic Weapons” paper concludes by stating that during the first half of 1969, “several laboratories reported factors engaged in passing over the genic message from DNA, the primary command post, to RNA which relays the chemical signal. The enzymatic process for RNA production has been known for some years, but now the factors have been revealed which regulate the initiation and specificity of enzyme production. Not only the factors have been found, but their inhibitors. Thus, the functions of life lie bare to attack.”

Larson’s paper makes no mention of field experiments in support of ethnic weapons but from other Army sources we know that the United States did conduct such experiments. In addition to the Pont St. Esprit experiment, cited above, others were conducted in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, where the U.S. Navy launched a number of experiments at a vital naval supply depot. These surreptitious experiments, in the Navy’s own words, were aimed at “Negroes, whose incapacitation would seriously affect the operation of the supply system.” The Navy secretly employed an aerosol delivery mechanism whereby Asperillus fumigates was employed to simulate Coccidioides. Coccidioides immitis is a lethal fungus that causes valley fever. Fort Detrick and Edgewood Arsenal scientists studied the fungus for years in the 1950s and 1960s. Their experiments revealed that African Americans, as opposed to whites, were much more likely to die from exposure to valley fever.

In addition to Navy’s experiments, there were also a series of SOD experiments conducted in the early 1950s in Florida that specifically targeted African Americans in impoverished areas. In several neighborhoods outside of Miami, as well as at least one location nearby where Disneyworld is today, SOD scientists conducted a number of experiments using mosquitoes as vectors for various biological agents. Files concerning the operations, according to the Army, were destroyed in 1973. Additionally, at about the same time, Fort Detrick researchers working under the CIA’s MK/NAOMI project targeted a number of inner-city minority neighborhoods in Chicago and New Orleans with several aerosol attacks using chemicals thought to be harmless. Perhaps coincidentally, months following the urban experiments, a large number of elderly African American fell seriously ill and died. One former SOD biochemist, interviewed in his Maryland home in 1999, told me, “We weren’t all that sure of the supposed harmless agent used. I don’t even recall what it was. I’d be lying if I said anyone really was all that concerned about the targeted areas to begin with.”

In 1974 and 1975, Dr. Richard Hammerschlag, a biomedical researcher with nearly 20 years of experience with several west coast medical institutions, including City of Hope National Medical Center and Kaiser Permanente Health Research and Cancer Services, sounded a note of alarm about ethnic weapons research at a meeting of the American Chemical Society. After learning of the Army’s experiments with ethnic weapons, as well as learning that the CIA under its revamped MK/ULTRA program, now called MK/SEARCH, was also researching ethnic weapons, Hammerschlag had began warning other scientists of the serious dangers of such research.

At the Chemical Society gathering, Hammerschlag said, “South East Asians, for example, have a different genetic composition than do Caucasians. It’s therefore possible that these people are susceptible to diseases westerners are not, and we know that’s true. Its been learned that certain proteins exist in the blood of specific groups. These proteins occur in multiple forms and are called polymorphysims. We call them blood types, such as A, B, O, and RH. And they appear in different frequencies among different groups of people. For example, blood type B almost never appears in American Indians. But accounts for 30-40 percent of certain population in South East Asia and Southern India.”

Dr. Hammerschlag eventually approached Dr. Larson to speak about ethnic weapons. Larson, according to a 1983 report, told Hammerschlag that if the research continued the efforts could be “suicidal” for humankind. Larson sounded this warning over 25 years ago, and by most accounts the efforts he warned about have continued unabated.

Copyright© H.P. Albarelli Jr. 2009-2010. All Rights Reserved. H.P. Albarelli Jr. is the author of A TERRIBLE MISTAKE: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA’s Secret Cold War Experiments [TrineDay Publishers, November 2010]. Anyone reprinting this article must give credit to its author.


  1. What a brave man you are.

    I'm trying to figure out how to link this article without being added to the list of victims myself.

  2. Mr. Albarelli is indeed brave. I celebrate such courage, and posting his words is the least I can do.

  3. Your Favorite BartenderApril 15, 2010 at 11:12 AM

    I wasn’t going to post on this thread, because frankly this is so much more important than most of the politics discussed on this site, I sort of feel as if I’m not worthy to post. There’s no “Devil’s Advocate” role to play, no “foil” needed. I’m going to wade into the deep end of the pool here, and please don’t take it that I’m “denying” the importance of what Mr. Albarelli is saying. If it’s true, it’s abominable, and he is indeed (as Suzan stated) incredibly brave for saying it.

    I wonder though if this is the best use of our time. I wonder if this might not end up as a distraction.

    AIDS is out there, and regardless of its origins, regardless of the initial intent, it’s an epidemic like none this world has seen. Even if it was initially intending to hit the G/L/T community, or the African-American community, or any other group, it’s clearly gone far beyond that level.

    Wouldn’t we be better off taking this suspicion, this rage, this shock, and filtering it toward finding a cure? Wouldn’t we be better off making fools of those who might have looked to decimate a population by making the disease benign?

    I give two scenarios I feel are similar.

    Nukes. Almost immediately upon creating ‘the bomb’ Oppenheimer regretted it. He spent virtually everyday after creating it apologizing for it. He was railed against and there are some who consider him a monster on the highest order. All of this is perfectly justified, and I don’t attempt to put anyone who takes those views down. However, the genie’s out of the bottle, the nukes are here, and far more important than blaming Oppenheimer (or any of the other scientists who created the technology, or even politicians who pushed for the creation of the technology) is finding a way to destroy the nukes, and prevent more from being created. Oppenheimer often said that if he could go back he never would have worked on the project, but he couldn’t go back. What he could (and did) do, what we can do, is to work toward the elimination of the problem.

    Shouldn’t we take the same path with AIDS? Shouldn’t it (in theory) be easier? There are crazy bastards out there who believe that nukes are necessary, are to be accumulated, but it’s hard to find people who think AIDS should be spread (save a wingnut here or there like Pat Robertson). We have nearly universal support for the elimination of AIDS, why not build on that.

    Second, and here’s where I go WAY past where the lifeguards are going to be able to help me, those who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks are crazy motherfuckers who do not deserve to walk this earth. We can (and unfortunately have) rail against them and “their kind” and “their ways” and that has done nothing except get more (some innocent, some not) people killed and in fact made the problem worse by alienating and marginalizing greater numbers of people who are thus naturally going to be pushed toward extremism.

    Most of us left of center would agree that what needs to be done is a massive and concentrated effort to rebuild our image in those countries and regions where those that would do us harm are located, where their families are located. To bring this back around to the point, treat the disease, not the symptoms.

    I feel like this book is about the person who sneezed on you and gave you a cold. He should have covered his mouth, he shouldn’t have come to work, but you need to treat the cold now, getting better needs to be the focus, because even if you smack him upside his head, you’ve still got a cold.

  4. I agree with your comments regarding 9/11 and our response to that.

    As for the other issue, you are offering me a false choice. There is no reason why we wouldn't or couldn't continue to try to eradicate this disease just because we found out its origin was suspect or natural. Indeed, I think a good scientific case could be made that knowing its genesis might speed up the process.

    Or, think on this: What if there were some cowards who had this medically critical information and are denying it just to cover their own asses?

    Look, I have no idea about these things other than the brave work being done by reporters like Albarelli. But, to let you know what animates me:

    As CIA doc-dumps dribble out over the decades, they tell a sorry tale of a dangerous shadow government that has been perverting and interfering with domestic affairs and foreign policy outside of the constraints of the rule of law and accountability to our Constitution.

    Following the no doubt well-intentioned National Security Act, along with the depraved Operation Paper Clip, in which we recruited "the best and the brightest" of those efficient Nazi scientists to duplicate their stellar successes for the USA (go on, click on the link), the shenanigans with Cuba, the slaughter of liberal leaders in the '60's, the experimental dosing of a French village with LSD... I could go on and on.

    My point is, it's not in the past. They are still operating, and warping our government in unknown ways. We think that they're cool and slick, them CIA fellers, but because they operate outside supervision, they're really a stupid organization that has to continue to clean up after itself. They make Bush's bubble look like Zen enlightenment.

  5. Your Favorite BartenderApril 16, 2010 at 6:52 AM

    I do not deny that our Intelligence agencies are tangled up in way too much crap behind the scenes...I've got two separate points to make and I'm going to make them in two separate posts because, frankly, you're going to take a bus down here and light me on fire for one, but the other you'll probably at least acknowledge as potentially viable…

    First (the “okay” one). Are we, or are we not, as a general society, less likely to give money to those we do not trust? Of course we are. When the Red Cross scandal hit after 9/11 their donations dropped by 70% in less than a week. Political figures, products (Toyota anyone?) if you screw us over generally the only way we react (and we don’t ALWAYS react, but if we react the only way we do) is monetarily (and there’s a point to be made here relating to the Revolution thread as well…but that’s for another time). If people (rightly or wrongly) think that the government is involved in the genesis of AIDS, they are less likely to fund the government’s pursuit of a cure for the disease.

    Now usually I’m not a big fan of putting our eggs in the government’s basket. As one of my favorite writers once said, “If the government had taken on polio we’d have the best iron lung in the world but no vaccine,” but in this instance the opposite is true. The pharmaceutical companies have literally no incentive to cure, or find a vaccine for, AIDS, because the money maker is the “treatment” regimes that are already out there. Why come up with a one shot vaccine that prevents the disease for everyone when you can sell the same four drug cocktail (or more to the point a revolving door of four drug cocktails, which is what most patients have to do because the virus adapts) to patients for 30 years.

    Without an economic incentive, the drug companies go back to developing pills that can make my cock hard on command like it was hooked up to a Clapper. Thus we really have no choice but to depend on the CDC and other government agencies. Problem is, AIDS doesn’t really get much play anymore, we’re far more concerned with H1N1 or Kangaroo Flu or whatever “superbug” is out there now…and a book like this only makes the government more suspect, and AIDS research/funding drop.

    Now, if somebody’s holding out information, I’m all for getting a little Cheney on their ass, Marcellus Wallace-style, but that doesn’t seem to be the point of the book. The book feels (from the small sample) like the author is making shadow puppets. “Look, it’s a dog, but you can’t pet him or get him to fetch.” Unless there are actual names named, unless there is PROOF rather than speculation, I just think it does more harm than good.

  6. Your Favorite BartenderApril 16, 2010 at 7:06 AM

    Now onto the post that’s going to get me lit on fire…

    If we’re going to have a CIA, you kind of have to take the good with the bad here…

    Would I prefer they were all boy scouts who love God, Apple Pie, and Momma?

    No sir, I would not.

    These are supposed to be sneaky bastards, they are supposed to be able to do the things that we don’t think they can do. Yes, they will leave the reservation from time to time, but they do quite a bit of good along with the bad. Remember, this is the rubberneck theory at work. The media (mainstream or otherwise) is not terribly interested in “The CIA obtained intelligence that helped us prevent the violent overthrow of a friendly government.” The media (mainstream or otherwise) is INCREDIBLY interested in “The CIA obtained intelligence that help us prevent the violent overthrow of a real asshole in Pakistan who runs drugs/guns to bad people and appears to embody everything we Americans hate in the world.”

    The one the media likes even more? “The CIA done fucked up.”

    I’m not terribly pleased with the concept that I might have my phone tapped (I spent a year in a Middle Eastern country shortly after converting to Islam…they’re not my biggest fan), nor am I psyched about the potential for simply disappearing one day because I decided to stop into a Mosque that somebody’s brother’s cousin’s father went to that walked past Osama Bin Laden 30 years ago (and how many keywords just got flagged by the CIA/NSA in THAT paragraph!). However, I also recognize that eventually they’re going to (probably) figure out that I’m a mostly harmless, not terribly devout, Muslim who’s far more concerned with whether or not the Cubs won today than the inner workings of Al Queda (keep flaggin’!) and they’ll leave me alone.

    So…shadow government? How about bad apples? We on the left can’t have our cake and eat it too. We’re the first to make the “the CIA can’t find it’s ass with two hands and a GPS” statements, but we also seems convinced that they can pull off the biggest global conspiracies in history. It’s one or the other. They’re wildly ineffective jackasses or Dr. Evil with an IQ over 170…

    I’ll go ahead and blindfold myself and light my final cigarette in anticipation of the firing line now…have a wonderful day.

    ...and for the record this is one of those arguments I would have completely tanked in our former incarnation of these discussions, having neither the time nor the concentration to properly express my opinion...I'm still going to lose this argument, but I'll go down fighting now as opposed to laying down like the French at a German film festival like I would have before...

  7. Well, you've saved me the price of a bus ticket, and a book of matches, all by yourself.


  8. Wait...does that mean I've changed your mind? No...couldn't be that...(looking over my shoulder) I feel...uncomfortable...

  9. Have you've gone anonymous, FaveB?

    No my mind isn't changed. It's just that anyone that argues from an authoritarian point of view (tolerating the actions of "experts," however you define them, outside of the purview of our supervision) is, frankly, a bit kindergarten around these parts.

    Not to put too fine a point on it...

  10. Your Favorite BartenderApril 19, 2010 at 7:38 AM

    As a general rule I agree with you. I do want to know what those in power are doing, and I want someone (preferably someone smarter than me) ensuring that what they are doing is in the public good. I’m just not sure who should be doing the watching, and (to borrow from a great graphic novel and damn near unwatchable movie) who will watch those watching.

    The American public, as a rule, is pretty ignorant when it comes to matters of government (see: Bush, George W.) and even more so when you get specific to foreign policy. I’m worried that if we offer too much “common man” oversight to an organization like the CIA then we render it meaningless…or is that the ever loving point?

    I hope not, because as you are no doubt aware, the utopian vision you seek is not shared by all out there, and even the sunshine and roses vision I seek (not quite as beatific as yours I admit…think of my utopian vision as the big studio version of your brilliant graphic novel) isn’t really favored world wide.

    There are bad people out there. There are, more to the point, crazy people out there. I am well aware that a pretty significant number of those crazy people are right here in the good ol’ U S of A, and I’m not so naïve as to think that the CIA is devoid of those crazy people.

    Again, I go back to the issue of who will watch those who are doing the watching? The general public at large has shown no inclination to stop what seem like grievous offenses (domestic wire tapping, Gitmo, rendition) even when they are thrown in our face. Some committee? If there is an answer out there, it’s beyond my (admittedly not top notch) powers of reason…

    So write something new because I’m not EVER going to win this argument (this is one of those times when I like saying, “Well, I can’t win because there is no “right” answer…” but I’d be lying, I can’t win because you know more than I on this particular subject…kind of like if we had a conversation about baseball how I’d wipe the floor with you…couldn’t you write about baseball?) and I don’t like always being overmatched…but first answer the question, who will watch those you want watching?

  11. "…but first answer the question, who will watch those you want watching?"

    I will, thank you very much. And that should be your answer, and everyone's answer. We're all human beings, and sometimes being "smarter" just means being more "sophisticated about the ways of the world," which is just another way of saying "I know how to get my slice of pie out of the 'inevitable' iniquities of the world," which is just another way of saying, "I am a sociopathic asshole."

    I will try to write a post about baseball some time, just so you can get even. Be careful, though - I always study up before I write.


  12. Your Favorite BartenderApril 20, 2010 at 2:48 PM

    First of all, bring it on baseball...I can talk VORP (look it up) and the savage inequalities of the MLB draft system, which guarantees the Americans (read: white kids) huge paydays while simultaneously guarantees foreign kids (read: unbelievably poor kids from the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Venezuela) nothing.

    Second, I absolutely respect the concept that you will be watching, and I also guarantee that I will occasionally watch...if it fits in my busy schedule of oppression and greed, but are we qualified to question all of this? You are a brighter bulb than myself (baseball not withstanding) but aren't some of these programs a little above even your head? Yes, there are some things that are (or at least should be) pretty black and white (I'm looking at you Mr. President and your assination of American citizens), but there are also some things in which actually having a more inside look at the "facts" (and I put quotes around it so that it would make it easier for you to jump all over the "what are the ACTUAL facts" argument) might change our minds, aren't there?

    For Christ's sake, write something else already, I'm getting my ass kicked here, but like Ali at the end of his career I just don't know when to walk away!

  13. Well, I did post a "Happy 4/20" pic for you all out there today :).

    May I suggest a book for you that touches deeply on how we recapture our politics, in feasible ways that do not require special knowledge or intelligence?

    The Value of Nothing," by Raj Patel, is a very easy read and I guarantee that you will look at things differently - perhaps not as I do, but it will be different.

  14. Your Favorite BartenderApril 20, 2010 at 11:17 PM

    Done. The book's been ordered (along with Andrew Ross Sorkin's "Too Big To Fail"). One recommendation from you, one from Colbert, two know what's coming don't you?


    Create a demand for a product (in this case my insatiable need to be accepted by you and my insatiable desire to some day be half as cool as Colbert) and then deliver that product (and the profit that goes with it).

    I feel so used...and love it.

    Wait..."very easy read"...are we implying that I'm stupid?!? Hey buddy, I am fully capable of finishing a book, and understanding a significant number of the words as well!

  15. These morons know now that many of their ancestors fooled around like Thomas Jefferson did right?
    These weapons seem to be custom made for genocide the we only want to target a small group in a city argument is weak.
    However how many people really know their ancestors how many of those ancestor's had secrets?
    Any bets the Pentagon high command does not want to think about if they are targeting themselves with these germs.


I welcome all reactions and points of view, so comments here are not moderated. Cheerfully "colorful" language is great. I'll even tolerate some ad hominem directed against me... each other, not so much. Racist or excessively abusive comments (or spam) will be deleted at my discretion.