Yes, I wish it had been made clearer and it helps a little better in the understanding of "why" this particular pork was added, but it still gives me the creeps.KEY UPDATE: Just exchanged e-mails with the reporter on this story, Brian Faler. He says the corporation is "trying to figure out ways to treat viruses used in warfare." Okay, that makes a lot more sense - just wish the original article had made that a little clearer.
My apologies to readers.
My basic point remains: There are ramification for certain types of research. All we have to do is look to our history to see what some of those consequences have been.
Shortly after World War II America began it’s biological and chemical weapons programs. Former Nazi and Japanese scientists were used in the founding of the American programs because they were leaders in the field at the time. What is more important though is that tests of biological weapons were conducted in the United States on private citizens, sometimes with permission and sometimes without their knowledge. In addition, tests of biological agents have been run in locations around the world including Asia, South and Central America, and the Caribbean. There are documented links between diseases that have infected local populations of plants, animals, and people in those areas and both American and Russian biological testing programs.
Originally the biological and chemical weapons programs were classified as defensive, but offensive weapons were later developed.
The part I high lighted is my problem in a nutshell, this research is to be used as a "defensive" measure, but does anyone think, for a second, that it new viral biowarfare agents, created to protect us or our military from an attack, will not be kept in its original form to use offensively if ever needed?
Which brings me to my next point, the further we come along in our research, the more advanced we get, the more dangerous the agents will be.
A leak, a malfunction or simply human error can cause massive amounts of damage.
You want to research with that crap, buy an Island with no population and start a facility there, do not do it here on our soil, and by god, do not make the same mistakes from the past by "testing" these things on our citizens and our military men and women.
Which brings us from history to more recent times.. like 1999: Specifically Executive Order 13139, signed by Bill Clinton, which is required military personnel to receive experimental vaccines not approved by the Food and Drug Administration.:
A day after Republican Rep. Chris Shays of Connecticut ended congressional hearings on the controversial decision mandating the inoculation of 2.4 million U.S. troops against anthrax, President Clinton quietly signed an executive order, or EO, that denies soldiers the right to refuse experimental vaccines.
EO13139, titled "Improving Health Protection of Military Personnel Participating in Particular Military Operations," caught Congress off guard as it directed the Pentagon to disregard the authority of the Food and Drug Administration, or FDA. The order authorized use of experimental vaccines -- those not approved by the FDA and therefore illegal -- to be administered to members of the armed forces without informed consent. (Source)
So when you read the original piece below, please keep in mind the history of biological agents and the damage ANY type of research into them have done to us as a country and has done to our military personnel as a consequence.
WE are responsible for that which we create in the name of "defense". [End Update]
Original Post:
I am begging here, please tell me this is some sick joke, someones idea of screwing with me, but god help us, don't tell me that Nancy Pelosi's earmarked pork is going to help create a "Novel Viral Biowarfare Agent."
Upon further review, this deserves its own post. I don't like earmarks to begin with; I'm slackjawed at news of Nancy Pelosi's earmark for a new biowarfare agent. No, I'm not making that up.Some companies stand to gain from Pelosi's earmarks. The California Democrat has won funding for six companies in a 2008 defense funding measure. One is a $4 million request to develop a ``novel viral biowarfare agent'' for Prosetta Corp., based in her San Francisco district. Tom Higgins, the company's chief executive officer, says he talked to the Speaker's staff directly rather than hiring a lobbyist and hasn't given money to her campaign. ``We're just a little company,'' he says.
As I said below, I'm curious about how lefties feel about the House Speaker giving a little handout to these guys if I'm a bit weirded out by U.S. research into new viral biowarfare agents. I can understand research in how to treat and mitigate the effects of bioweapons, but do we really need any more of these? And how, exactly, do you make a sales pitch for a "novel viral biowarfare agent?" What, anthrax and ebola are cliche?
I am simply aghast here.
This goes beyond the pork and earmark debate, this goes directly to the stupid idea category.
Don Surber speaks to the earmark issue.
If these earmarks are so “worthy,” why must they sneak in through the back door at the Pentagon instead of being proposed by the generals who run the military?
Republican Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona spoke up for the taxpaying people, when he told Bloomberg News: “It baffles me how people can complain bitterly about Halliburton and no-bid contracts and then lard up a bill with literally thousands of earmarks to companies when that’s all they are — no-bid contracts. … So many of these companies turn around and give campaign contributions right back to the sponsor of the earmark. This kind of circular fund raising is unbelievable.”
Red State points out that is even more than Bush regarding weapons development.
Lets look at London's most recent crisis for a second, where it seems there is a good possibility that it was a leak from a privately run research facility that sparked the Foot and mouth disease that has been found in some animals.
LONDON (AFP) - An urgent probe into Britain's foot and mouth outbreak homed in on an animal disease research laboratory Sunday amid fears of a virus leak, as other countries watched the potential crisis closely.
I am not naive enough to believe we do not do such research, and I hate that thought, in and of itself, but to have a self proclaimed "little company" doing this research is simply ridiculous.
Biological warfare, in my mind, is unacceptable. It is a reality that it has been used in the past and, yes, we must be prepared for an attack of this nature upon us... but DAYUM.
Since we are dealing with ridiculous things, how about we address the UN, or better yet, visit Right truth because Debbie tells us of the latest ridiculousness regarding the UN.
[Update] From the comments section we have a message listed as from the Prosetta Corporation, although I have no way to verify that since they left it in comments and as of yet I have not received any emails, BUT, for the sake of fairness, I am posting this comment as an update.
Due to an editing error, the reporting in the Bloomberg News Service story about Prosetta is misleading. The company is in no way whatsoever involved in creating biowarfare agents. To the contrary, Prosetta's[End Update]
scientific research is focused on finding treatments for a wide range of
viruses, including Hepatitis C and Influenza. The program reported in
the news story is named "Identification and Treatment" of biowarfare agents, but was mischaracterized in the news story. The company has made important progress in its research, which commenced in response to a competitive Request for Proposals designed to address a serious threat to the health and safety of our citizens.
.
