Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Gates, Buffett and the New Social Darwinism

It is generally believed that those least able stumble, and fall to the wayside while those gifted rise to the top.

A type of selection process weeds out those unfit for success, and rewards the best, and most deserving in society.

Social Darwinism is at play it is argued, and the rich, powerful, and successful deserve their lot in life. They have either earned what they have, or perhaps inherited it from their parents who did the earning.

In any case one should not question the social order, or the devine right of authority, and nobility. They are there for a reason - they deserve it.

Luck is nothing more than wisely putting yourself in the right place, at the right time, and so even those falling into wealth, and fame, deserve what they have.

The poor also deserve their station, if not why wouldn't they work harder, and smarter, and show themselves capable to their superiors - thus finding promotion to a more successful position in life.

And for those somewhere in the middle, well keep working harder, longer, and smarter, and one day you too may find your earthly reward - have faith, and keep voting Republican.

Conservatives tend to agree with, and promote, this philosophical approach. Let the rich alone, they deserve what they have. Let the poor learn from their suffering for they surely deserve it.

Low taxes, low wages makes a wonderful world.

Yet, despite this widely held view that greed is the ultimate good, the two richest people in the world have decided that greed isn't good. They have decided that greed is only a means to an end, but not the destination itself.

Instead we see the most financially successful people of our time take retirement from the accumulation of riches, and give most of their fortunes away to the poor, and needy.

What gives? Is this even allowed? Did I miss something in the rules?

The biggest winners of the game of life have decided that living in the mansion isn't the object of the game, but instead have decided that helping out those in the poor house is the biggest victory of all.

There's certainly a lesson for us all in the actions of Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett.

I just hope the rest of us are listening.

Monday, June 26, 2006

Covert Testing of Immobilization Pathogens

Would the U.S. government ever use weakend bio weapons upon its own people?

There's no reason to believe the U.S. government wouldn't expose its own people to weakend forms of viri, and bacteria in illegal covert bio weapon's testing. The Main Stream Media in the U.S. would never expose such a program even if it ever came to know of its existence. Therefore there simply is no means by which the people's rights would be protected from this type of governmental abuse.

In a one party state in which there is no protection of the individual from government abuse anyone's worst nightmare becomes just another unpublished leak.

Program Justifications*:

  • We're only going to use a weakend viri to test how a specific viri spreads.
  • We're only going to use a weak bacteria to test how a specific bacteria spreads.
  • We're only using a weak pathogen to test a new method, and/or technology used to spread pathogens.
  • We're only using this weakend pathogen, or series of pathogens, to secretly vacinate the public from a real pathogen which the "bad guys" will one day use upon the U.S. population.
  • We're developing means of countering chemical/bio-terror through the covert development of a mass antidote innoculation delivery system which could be employed after a biological, or chemical attack.

With immunity from detection, and criminal prosecution those who would carry out such a program could easily advance such a bio weapons testing program for decades without anyone, or any organization opposing them.

I believe it is an absolute certainty that the population of the U.S. has served as test subjects for a long running covert bio weapons testing program.

Not In America!

The U.S. government spies upon its own people in every way imaginable justifing such activity as being conducted for the common good. The Constitution is no longer seen as an inhibiting factor to government activity. The individual no longer matters in concerns of the state. It therefore must be assumed that the U.S. government would carry out other activities it deems as promoting the common good - including testing bio weapons upon its own people.

Such A Program Would Be Exposed!

Those most likely to know of such a program's existence would be most likely to approve of such a program, and therefore least likely to reveal its existence - making such a program much more likely to exist than not.

International Treaties Prevent This!

The U.S. ignores international treaties at will whenever it sees a treaty as an inhibition to national security.

Too crazy to believe?

Persuasive rhetoric: If our enemies would use bio-or-chem warfare against this nation, and they are not inhibited by international conventions then we must be prepared to fight fire with fire! We must do whatever it takes to win the war against terrorism. Sacrafices must be made to secure the safety of the public. What's a little discomfort (mild infections) when it comes to securing that safety?

*Such justifications would have been given by those involved in the program to each other (saving the world for communism, terrorism, etc.), and to a handful of members of Congress over the last fifty years - and maybe even a President or two.

email jp






Wired News: Top Stories