Slashdot Mirror
Einstein's 1,427-Page F.B.I. File
meow meow cat chow writes: "Fred Jerome of the Gene Media Forum has recently written a book called "The Einstein File: J. Edgar Hoover's Secret War Against the World's Most Famous Scientist." The book talks about how the FBI spied on Einstein and identifies some of the people who said he was a spy. Jerome sued the government to obtain access to the 1,427 page file which can be found at (http://foia.fbi.gov/einstein.htm)
The New York Times has an article about the book."
Look down the list: William Faulkner, Bertoldt Brecht, the American Friends' Service Committee. They're all leftists. Are you people seriously trying to claim that it is not the role of the FBI to keep tabs on people who are fundamentally at war with the United States? Hello?! These files are relics of a nearly-forgotten time when the FBI defended this nation. The FBI you see through these files is not the degenerate radical group now laboring to abolish the sacred liberties for the sake of which our nation was founded.
Can any rational person doubt that the American Friends Service Committee is a radical leftist organization? The so-called "Society of Friends" (better known as the Quakers) have managed to disinform the American public to the point where most of us get them mixed up with the Amish (to whom they bear no resemblance, believe me), but that's just clever propaganda. Look at their web site. Follow the link above and see for yourself. They describe themselves as "committed to social justice". I think we all know enough about left-wing cant to recognize that as a committment to paternalistic big-government interventionism, a managed economy, affirmative action, gun-control, and all the other crap the left wants to chain us with. Not only that, but it looks like they're in pretty good with Iraq, huh? They're in pretty good with the UN, too.
The AFSC has been involved in more left-wing causes in the last century than any other known group, including the infamous Students for a Democratic Society -- another deviously misnamed radical left-wing cabal.
The Quakers pose as Christians, but they're not. They're a cult. They reject the Biblically-based doctrine of salvation by faith alone. I'm sorry, but if you reject a basic tenet of the Christian religion, you're not a Christian. I don't care if you accept the divinity of Christ and all that: It's all or nothing. Now, I'm not a Christian myself and I really don't care if they worship John Belushi, it's all the same to me -- but they are lying when they claim to be Christian, and lying is a problem for me. What are they trying to hide? It's clear enough from their web site.
As for the others, Brecht was a well-known, life-long German Socialist and a professional propagandist through the medium of his plays. He's a favorite of left-wing academics to this day, for that reason alone. His work is utterly worthless except as left-wing propaganda. None of his plays were produced in his lifetime, and none have been produced since except in left-wing drama departments of Eastern colleges. When he was alive, he languished in utter (and well-deserved) obscurity.
William Faulkner was a leftist as well. Throughout his whole life he was involved in liberal and "progressive" causes such as integrationism and Federal intervention in the domestic affairs of the States.
All of these people posed (and the AFSC still poses) a clear threat to the welfare of this nation. Had the FBI neglected to maintain files on them, that agency would have been sorely remiss.
None of this, of course, has any bearing on the rogue agency which the FBI has since become. Nowadays they have entirely given up their legal and moral obligation to monitor (and occasionally neutralize) threats to this nation. Instead, they spend their time harrassing and killing innocent, law-abiding citizens at Ruby Ridge and elsewhere. The FBI of today is not the FBI which kept a close eye on Bertolt Brecht. The FBI of today is itself a danger to this nation.
Times have changed.
After all Einstein was for banning all nuclear weapons and against the development of the H bomb.
Keep in mind that these were the hard times in the cold war against the communists. Some people wrongly thought that all anti nuclear weapons guys were pro communist. Ironically their preceptions that the spending of more and more money into the military sector would bring down communism has turned out correct after all. Einstein was in fact unwillingly helping Stalin and Breshnev.
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
You forget sakharow. His struggle, the same as einstein's in this matter, desserved the urss government.
urss would have gone down anyway, would the money have been put in something else than nuclear weapons , as it was unable to stand a long economical war against the usa. Wich is what it was all along.
The fact that both systems chose the weapon area to compete the most is a moral standpoint and shows both system as being bad from this point of view. This is the battlefield that einstein and sakharov chose to fight in.
Ethics. Responsability. not politics and power.
stop with this abuse of moderation now, editors.
...yes, it's scary.
It also sounds like a joke if you didn't live through the fifties. I did, and believe me, it was no joke.
I'm also scared by a lot of current rhetoric following 9/11. The words "terrorism" and "terrorist" seem to be taking on a lot of the baggage that "communism" and "communist" had in the fifties. If you're harboring terrorists, you're a terrorist... if you're associating with terrorists, you're a terrorist...
And "terrorist" doesn't seem to have a well-defined meaning, it's anyone the U. S. government wishes to attack.
And every time things settle down, the government announces some new warning about a possible terrorist attack and urges us to be vigilant and keep an eye on our friends and neighbors for suspicious activities--whatever they might be.
Does ANYONE seriously believe that NORTH KOREA had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks? Or shares any fundamental views with Al-Quaida? No, yet somehow they're part of the International Terrorist Conspiracy.
More to the point, where's the file on Erdos, the famous Hungarian communist (or mathematician, depending on who you ask)? There was a lot of government harrasement talked about in his autobiography.
Communism isn't an inherently evil and nasty system.. The communist governments of Russia and China were/are vicious and corrupt, but that's more a statement about the people that lead them than of the basic systems themselves. It's not like the US is a whole lot better with it's support of people like Agusto Pinochet, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden -- all in the name of so-called 'democracy'. We sometimes forget that these 'evil nasty people' are a product of our own government's support system.
Einstein 'agitated' for peace. He had ideas that were different than those who were in power at the time. These should never be considered crimes in a truly democratic system. The idea behind democracy is that an idea should either stand or fall on it's own merits -- not based on the fact that someone hates the label that some intolerent extremist attaches to it (like Hoover, McCarthy or even Nixon).
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Ah yes. Here we go again:
login: slashdotid
pass: slashdot
Carnivore, anyone? Patriot Act? Homeland Security?
Find some scary factoids from the past to make today seem better than yesterday.
The simple people automatically scrabble after factoids like hens scrabble after proffered grain.
Sometimes I wonder if my commitment to try and ensure my privacy is worth the hastle. Reading this has reminded me exactly why. Having a 1247 page FBI file because of pure speculation and rumer is incredible. And this is before the ever higher big brother force of 2002.
For Einstein's own thoughts on socialism, check out his essay at Monthly Review: Why Socialism?
http://www.progressive.org/May 2002/berk0502.html
"President Bush has announced that, with the help of the National Sheriffs' Association, the Neighborhood Watch Program will be taking on new significance," according to the government's web page at citizencorps.gov/watch.html. "Community residents will be provided with information which will enable them to recognize signs of potential terrorist activity, and to know how to report that activity, making these residents a critical element in the detection, prevention, and disruption of terrorism." The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will be supervising the program. "Terrorism prevention" is now part of the "routine mission" of the Neighborhood Watch Program, the web site says.
So now all those little old ladies who have nothing better to do, will be able to finger terrorists. And anyone who as ever run into this type of person will understand why this will be a problem.
The United States that we think we're living in, is already gone. People are already goosestepping.
Doesn't it?
If The United States were a true democracy, then being willing to look at communist principles shouldn't be considered a crime. The people who liked some of the principles of communism should have been allowed to speak those ideas freely. Being able to hear and discuss those ideas, we the people should be able to accept or reject them freely, and based on their true value.
To reject an idea simply because someone attached the name 'communist' to it is not the pinnacle of democracy. Nor is destroying the lives of people simply because they are friends of such people and possibly shared belief in the value of some of those ideas an expression of the concept of free speech.
As the bible says, "What good does it do a man to rule the world if he loses his own soul?". What good does it do to have a 'democracy' where the only idea that are allowed to be held are those which are in agreement with those in power? What good is 'free speech' that is only free for the wealthy (or, for that matter, the poor)?
Some people might (with good cause) consider the principles behind the Open Source and Free Source movements communistic in nature (just listen to the rantings of the RIAA and MS). Should this, by itself, be just cause to persecute and jail people like RMS and Linus?
I think not.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
You are living in a country that has "in god we trust" on every coin (not sure if this even the case in e.g. Iran), and the president's political categories are "good" and "evil". Ah yes, and communism was, is, and always will be "evil".
Seems like a little?
Seems like a lot?
Glad an unbiased police is there to protect the citizens huh?
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
some dumb moderator obviously didn't get the humor in it ...
There is a sinister, wretched cancer growing upon the very fabric of
American culture. It is eating away at our morals, our health, our
safety, and most of all, our spirituality. It operates behind
carefully constructed veils such as "freedom of speech" and "moral
relativism." I'm, of course, talking about none other than the liberal
agenda. The nay-sayers. The blame-America-firsters. The political
dissidents.
Before I go on, I would like to make it clear that it was not too long
ago that I was very optimistic with, what I saw, as perhaps a new
direction our country was taking. This optimism emerged shortly after
the 9-11 tragedy, when I looked down the street and saw Henry Parker,
the neighborhood's most outspoken liberal, putting a flag outside his
door. In my optimism, I reasoned that a tragedy of this magnitude
should wake up even the most radical liberal permanently! In reality,
of course, his flag is long gone and he, as well as millions of his
other fellow leftists, has reverted back to their un-American
activities.
During times of peace, perhaps the activities of these iconoclastic
"citizens" can be tolerated. But when our children live with the
threatening knife of terrorism poised at their throat, our tolerance
must be waived. Ann Coulter put this much more eloquently than I, when
she recently stated that "We need to execute people like John Walker
in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize
that THEY can be killed too,"
How true this is. Up high upon their ivory towers, liberals have
indeed lost touch with reality. It would seem that they cannot see
this knife being wielded by the murderous villains in countries all
around the globe. They have become ungrateful for the things that the
greatest nation on earth has given them, and their similarities to the
heathens that the LORD spoke of in Sodom and Gomorrah, is becoming
shockingly more similar by the minute. Of course, I'm certainly not
proposing that we indiscriminately rain fire and brimstone upon them,
but certainly we can give them a nudge, push or blatant smack up side
the head, to wake them up.
Perhaps this all seems ambiguous at this point, I apologize for that,
but it is necessary to spell out a problem unemotionally, so that we
can create proposals based in pure logic.
Upon investigation, I realized how we barely dodged a bigger bullet on
9-11. It is true that the majority of the liberals of this country
were temporarily whipped into the mentality of a sane individual and
yes, they stayed out of our way long enough so that we could
accomplish our most pressing concern. However, there was a minority of
dissenters who did not feel that the death of some three thousand
people was worth letting go of their perverted ideology.
Where do these people hide, you ask? Behind closed doors? In damp,
dim-lit basements? No, my friends, the fact of the matter is that
these enemies of the people did not even hide at all. They live on
college campuses and many of them even stood on street corners and
pedestrian malls holding up signs that boasted their dementia.
Although it is widely known that the campuses of U.S. universities
have long been the breeding grounds of anti-Americanism, communism,
homosexuality, illicit drug activity and other acts of fornication
that I cannot even describe. This time, however, they have simply gone
too far. These pro-anarchy pacifists have declared war upon American
morality, and I think it's time we finally fought back.
That is why I propose abolishing the status quo of ALL U.S.
universities, public and private (with perhaps the exception of Bob
Jones University). All upper-level administrators should be fired as
well as all the beatnik socialists that they call "professors". In its
place, I propose, the military take over all responsibilities that we,
so foolishly, currently place in the hands of known dissidents. I
would imagine that many changes would be made to the current
curriculum of most universities. Art and Music, for example, would
take on a much more limited (and supervised) role. I'd imagine (or at
least hope) that Philosophy would be eliminated entirely, as it is a
field that is well known for converting good, God-fearing Americans
into heretic dissidents. I'd also imagine that Public Safety officers
at the campuses would take on a much broader role, to not only uphold
the physical safety of the campus, but also it's ideological safety
with the introduction of sweeping un-American activities regulations.
While the results would not be instantaneous as we would have to wait
a generation for the remaining liberals to die off, but eventually one
day we can truthfully and honestly say "United We Stand".
Thank you.
David E. Rosch
Being a communist isn't an opinion ? So peoplehave the right to belong to Klu Klux Klan (sp?) and say quote "niger are an inferior race", but saying "capitalism isn't the right way" and "the production should be in the hand of the people" is forbidden and the govt should have the right to find you suspicious and investigate you ? Ouch. So much for the country of freedom of thougth.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Ku Klux Klan - 91,800 pages
Aryan Brotherhood - 2,630 pages
Adolph Hitler - 34,600 pages
Adolf Hitler - 195,000 pages
Hell's Angels - 21,300 pages
Martin Luther King Jr. - 613,000 pages
Black Panther Party - 21,100 pages
Gay Activists Alliance & GLA - 549,621 pages
Abbie Hoffman - 19,800 pages
Albert Einstein - 481,000 pages
Erm, the Black Panthers should not be put in the same cattegory as Martin Luther King or the Gay Activists... That's just wrong, do you know what the Panthers really stood for?
------
Sig
Comment removed based on user account deletion
After all, helping to crack Enigma, win WW2, invent Turing Test and Turing Machine etc. was enough to make the (UK) govt. pump him full of hormones until he committed suicide.
It is the function of the people to support their government and its efforts to protect our national security. It is not the function of the government to represent the so-called "people" via corrupt self serving professional politicians. These representatives are more interested in foreign campaign contributions than they are in standing up for our country. September 11 has been a wake-up call to those who believe in national security and national unity. We may be seeing an end to the anti-Vietnam syndrome of whiny politically correct liberals weakening our national resolve and the very fabric of a patriotic society. Check the URL above for more information!
On the other hand, proving Martin Luther King Jr is the spawn of Satan is quite difficult, it takes about 100 times as much research!
As for the Aryan Brotherhood I figure a lot of it is "see article on Adolph Hitler" so they can save duplicate research.
Nathan's blog
This is scary stuff ..
He insisted that most committee members did not know what was in the 28-page amendment. Mr. DeLay said the threat to American troops was so urgent that "we don't have time for Mr. Obey to read the bill."
Mr. Obey, after demonstrating that some committee members did not know the court would be located in The Hague, asked if Mr. DeLay understood that under the rescue provision, "We would be sending our troops to invade the Netherlands." Mr. DeLay said he did not consider that a serious question.
The 'threat to american troops' is so incredibly urgent that there isn't even time to read the Bill that they're going to pass into LAW? Shouldn't this guy be in a padded cell somewhere?
Yeah, and Al Qaeda was a CIA created and funded organization. So what? Times change, people change. Whats your point? Does this somehow make his pacifist stance of later years irrelevant? Have you never in your life ever realised you were wrong on something and changed your stance? Do you think that if you did, it would be fair for people to continue to judge you forevermore on your *previous* stance? I don't think so.
...propaganda.
Yes, the freedom of themselves and their people from oppression by the racist American government and people of the time. For an alternative to the propaganda you've been exposed to, you might try reading this, or this (the latter with a good and honest summary of pros and cons). Search Google for plenty more.
Are you saying that in similar circumstances, you would just suck it up? When a people's pride, dignity and survival is at stake, in an unjust society and under unjust laws, conventions and law enforcement, some may claim that they would not choose violence as a solution - and a few might follow through, like King and Gandhi. Others may choose the coward's path, and suffer in silence.
But in these circumstances, violent rhetoric and violence is a very understandable and natural (as in human nature) course of action, and if you condemn the Black Panthers for that, it's only because you've never remotely been in a similar position.
You're probably a white male (as am I), and you probably grew up in an environment in which the closest you ever came to "oppression" was being grounded for not doing your homework.
The Black Panthers originated partly in response to police brutality in Oakland, CA. Police brutality against blacks in American cities is hardly a solved problem, but today, it gets dealt with much more effectively by society and the government. That wasn't the case in 1966. You can thank the Black Panthers directly for the relatively peaceful society you enjoy today, because they clearly demonstrated what can happen if you don't deal with issues such as police brutality and discrimination in a fair and open manner.
As an aside, I just helped organize a little local debate last Thursday on the proposition "American is a Rogue State". This was in Richmond-upon-Thames (west London) which boasts an American University among other institutions.
Rather than have a bunch of aging British lefties whinge about US imperialism, we thought we'd invite some students down from the college and get a more balanced opinion. You can guess the outcome - we couldn't get anyone to present the pro-US case at all, and the students were considerably more critical of US policy than our resident revolutionaries.
Point is that, the war on terror not withstanding, if the US cannot carry mainstream opinion in allied countries for its general foreign policy direction, the effect will be cataclysmic for its interests and the wider world's. No Blair or Berlusconi will be able to hold a line of international support for the US while the US is not seen as supporting international interests.
Second to last line of the parent of the parent to this comment: "The FBI of today is itself a danger to this nation."
Parent to this comment: I am thinking the FBI is about to start a file on you.
Exactly. No one should think that the FBI's actions always make sense. Probably no organization with a lot of money and a lot of secrecy is able to keep things in control. It is extremely difficult to keep everyone in an open organization contributing sensibly. It is impossible to manage an organization in which secrecy is part of the organizing philosophy.
I wrote a book about the hidden violent activities of the U.S. government. It is entirely free. Most of the explanation comes from links to articles at some of the most respected news agencies in the world: What should be the Response to Violence?
Your comments leave me with the impression that any efforts backed by a right-wing and/or "Christian" agenda are outside the realm of criticism. The hard right is no more desirable than the hard left. They BOTH have their agendas, and they are both vying for the power, influence, and control of the masses. Maybe you can explain what you find so endearing about the history of religion and religious persecution, and why trading a leftist direction for something of this nature would be any better.
So, what is your suggestion, then? Cease and Desist the FBI, or make the page count equal? Both of these suggestions sound ludicrous. Sure, one can use the word "reporting" for news articles, and the word "spying" when the FBI does the same thing. The volumes are biased, but that is a mere result of the activeness of the subjects being documented. Simple-minded people (the KKK, Hell's Angels,...) have little to say, while sophisticated, hard-working people are generally more involved in a larger community, and have more to talk about. Hence the uneven outcome. What at first sounds like an alarm call of an evil totalitarian governemnt, isn't.
By the way, can we *please* be allowed to use longer subject lines?
webster.com says:
"4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands "
my guess is "population" means non-combatant groups as well. Killing soldiers (even non-combatant ones) in duty is a guerilla action.
not such a wide definition. and lets not mince words: in diplomatic speach "harboring terrorists" just means "we know you use it, we just don't want to argue about wether you (the leader) specificly approve every action." (or, like with the Palestinian Authority, we don't want to say it out loud due to politics)
Nobody's afraid of the FBI here (the ones that should will probably be too busy making bombs or serine gas, not posting /. )
... for which /. is a good testing-ground.
what people are afraid of is the oppinion of their fellow readers: today a reader, tommorow a moderator, and he may be arab or israeli or chinese or whatever.
the tirany of the masses
fuck that, posting un-anonimouly.
Working for necessity's mother.
It's too bad they don't have more. They're just wrong and what they do is disgusting.
If someone needs to convince terrorists that peaceful civil disobedient is more dangerous to the authorities than more radical movements, I guess the numbers for Martin Luther King demonstrate that quite nicely.
My very simplistic model is this:
taking the distribution of wealth as a function, the amount of discontent is a function of it's gradient.
extreme comunism == gradient too low (everyone is equally dissadisfied) => no-one works very hard unnless in a gulag => society will deteriorate.
extreme capitalism == gradient too high , people starving even though food exists, eventually too much discontent creates a revolution.
add to that the subject of inheritance (of furtune, NOT properties
extreme socialism (as in france) == the government redistributes wealth by heavy taxation of inheritance, some widdows have to sell their house (!!) to pay the tax,
extreme capitalism (USA): no taxation of inheritance whatsoever (AFAIK), hence the gaps widen with each generation (what do you need to become a billioner ? be a millioner, much easier when daddy's one.)
( that's what wrong with your assumption: you own what you produce + what father produced, hence the "equity lords" don't need to produce anything, they'll still get richer.)
so my metric is this: what balance will benefit our children the most ? property laws and morals should benefit human beings, not the other way around.
Working for necessity's mother.
taking the distribution of wealth as a function, the amount of discontent is a function of it's gradient
I think you mean "slope," not "gradient." The slope of a function of one variable is the time rate change of that function over an interval.
"Gradient," on the other hand, is the idea of slope applied to multivariable calculus. A function of two variables defines a surface, and the gradient of the surface at a given point is represented by a vector. The magnitude of the vector corresponds to the greatest rate of change of the surface away from that point, and the direction of the vector is the direction of greatest change.
property laws and morals should benefit human beings, not the other way around.
But that's not right at all. Morality is assumed to be an absolute system that dictates what people should and shouldn't do. Different moral systems are based on different fundamental assumptions-- rules handed down by a deity, or something else entirely-- but they're all considered to be absolute.
Basically you're taking the opposite position from mine. You're trying to say that economic systems should be rational, based on such-and-such criteria. I'm saying that a perfectly rational system with a flawed moral foundation-- communism-- can't work, and should not be implemented. Any benefits gained from that system would be "poisoned."
In your post you implied-- although you didn't say, so I may be reading you wrong-- that wealth should be a reward for productivity: "that's what wrong with your assumption: you own what you produce + what father produced, hence the 'equity lords' don't need to produce anything, they'll still get richer." Therefore-- again, I'm inferring here-- you believe that the wealthiest individuals should be the most productive individuals.
That's where pure rationalism breaks down. If my father had left me one billion dollars when he died, then I would have inherited that one billion dollars and become very wealthy having produced nothing. According to your evaluation, that would be bad.
So your answer is taxation: the government should take from my inheritance to reduce the degree to which I gain wealth without being productive.
Whenever anybody says a sentence of the form, "The government should do X," I replace "the government" with "Joe Smith." If what's being proposed would be morally or ethically wrong for a person-- Joe Smith-- then it's wrong for the government.
So let's try that: "So your answer is taxation: Joe Smith should take from my inheritance to reduce the degree to which I gain wealth without being productive."
Taking something that rightfully belongs to me is tantamount, in my mind, to stealing from me. So that's wrong.
(Before you get all excited, the same argument doesn't apply to taxation in general. In that sense, the government [Joe Smith] is providing me with certain services in return for my money. That's a morally sound transaction. But I don't get anything in return for paying inheritance taxes. So that's morally unsound.)
...topic but more like "United States" ...I guess you just couldn't resist the einstein pic.
1) slope Vs gradient
talking of "wealth" as a single random vasriable (which is the way I described it) you are, of course right.
but this RV can be (and is) highly correlated with a function of many other parameters (education, societal values, ambition, talents ): to this I ment when I said "gradient": and the distribution of wealth is governed by a diffusion law on some manifold, created by other constraints.
but of course I did not say so on my original post, so you were right.
2) on morality
"Morality is assumed to be an absolute system that dictates what people should and shouldn't do..."
assumed (absolute) by who ? human laws are allways subject for change (formally- through legislation, and informally- through discussions and precedents)
and even If you are religous, and assume a deity gave you a set of absolute values, he in his eternal wisdom (no irony) can have an infinite set of values, but we have to interpret a final set as time and context changes; a live religion may have absolute values: but the (human) interpretations are very much in flux, since new situation occur.
so there can be no "absolute" set of values.
to be a moral person, in my view, is to balance the good of society and fellow citizens with your family, and act to the better interest of all. And social values are your "theoretical tools" with which you speculate what is the better way to act.
Theoretical tools can however be wrong, or even contradictory, they should be used and develloped, but allways with a grain of salt.
3) on taxation.
"[with taxation in general] the government [Joe Smith] is providing me with certain services in return for my money. "
so what is different here ? taxation is never "fair" , and you allways get less than you paid for. You also cannot (legally) choose not to be taxed, it is an inforced bargain.
but as for your question "what do I get in return?"
I say you may get a healthier, steadier society, where you are less afraid some poor joe will kidnap your daughter for ransom.
Working for necessity's mother.
If the money hadn't been sapped out of their system to compete with in an arms race, the USSR would exist today. What they couldn't do was manage to fund the construction and propogation of their way of life, and compete with the West's arms construction.
I'm glad that you think you're far more versed in History then everyone else.
Would you be asking "is terrorism OK" if you found yourself living in a place where your basic rights were virtually nonexistent, where you were being subject to continual harrassment, and you were unable to live in peace and go about your own business without continual interference and oppression from powerful government and social forces?
Terrorism is a weapon most commonly used by the oppressed against the strong. The targets of terrorism don't usually think it's OK, but they're obviously biased.
There's a big difference, though, between terrorism by citizens against their own state, and terrorism by external agents against another state, as on 9/11. The latter is much more like a traditional war, in many respects.
A clearer example of traditional terrorism was the Oklahoma City bombing. That was executed by a misguided and disgruntled American citizen. If there were millions of such citizens attempting to take such actions, you can be sure that their grievances would not be taken lightly. Happily, Timothy McVeigh was a kook, and can't be defended the way the Black Panthers can. It's fairly unlikely that large internal terrorist organizations will arise within a fair and just state, but if and when they do, there's probably a serious problem that needs to be looked at, that goes beyond the symptom of terrorism.
Whenever anybody says a sentence of the form, "The government should do X," I replace "the government" with "Joe Smith." If what's being proposed would be morally or ethically wrong for a person-- Joe Smith-- then it's wrong for the govrnment.
You may believe this, but I doubt it. "The government decided John Doe did something bad so they locked him up." versus "Joe Smith decided John Doe did something bad so he locked him up." Maybe you're into anarchy, but AFAIK the prevailing view is that the point of the government is to be a representative of (roughly) the will of the general population, and therefore is supposed to exercise more power than individuals. Determining how much power you think they should use is up to your political philosophy.
As for the distinction you make in your last paragraph, it doesn't work out. First, what makes you think the government is providing you with services in exchange for your income tax but not inheritance tax? (Aside from silly jokes about how dead people don't get government services.) Second, is it actually OK with you for Joe Smith to demand money in return for services you didn't ask for? If you ask me, Joe Smith is an excellent rhetorial device and a poor device for actual politics.
Can we please have some content from slashdot? please? after all, they're being paid for....
hmm... what are they being paid for?
assumed (absolute) by who ?
I suggest you do some reading on the subject of morality and ethics. The existence of moral or ethical systems is predicated on the assumption that the actions of people are either right or wrong, just or unjust, virtue or vice. Moral systems attempt to provide a framework for deciding which actions are right and which are wrong. People can argue about the various pros and cons of the various moral systems if they want to, but frankly that kind of debate bores me. I have a set of values that I try to live by. If yours are different, that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that my system is absolute for myself, just like yours is (should be!) absolute for yourself.
so there can be no "absolute" set of values.
What you're describing is what I was taught to call "moral relativism." And I believe it's fine in the abstract; if you're an anthropologist or a philosopher, it's important to put your own opinions and values aside in the process of studying your subject. But in practice, that is in actual interactions between people, I think "moral relativism" is dangerous and wrong.
to be a moral person, in my view, is to balance the good of society and fellow citizens with your family, and act to the better interest of all.
Fine. I have a different view. My view is basically, "I'll take care of mine. You take care of yours." If someone truly needs help, I believe the right thing to do is help them if you can. That's called charity, and it works on a person-to-person level. But I put absolutely zero stock in "the better interest of all."
You also cannot (legally) choose not to be taxed, it is an inforced bargain.
Oh, that's not literally true. I could choose to leave my city, county, state, or country. And I know people who have done that very thing (on the county, not national, level) over property taxes. Their opinion was different from mine, but I respect them for making a tough choice.
But in general, you're right. I can't opt out of paying my taxes in any direct way. The justification for this is that I am entitled to a voice in my government-- either simply through voting or through holding office myself-- that I can use to influence these policies. So while it's definitely not perfect, it's at least fair.
Actually, praise of the Taliban freedom fighters used to occur often in this country; for example look at Reagan's speech marking Afghanistan Day.
Simple-minded people (the KKK, Hell's Angels,...) have little to say
But lots to burn, lynch, etc. Which, what with being illegal and everything, should be of rather more interest to the FBI than what they say.
Well, I think the point that this all brings up is: When is it acceptable for the government to invade someone's privacy for 'investigative purposes'?
Two of the major tenents that the US government is based upon are:
1. The freedom of holding and expressing opinions, even if they are at odds with the prevailing majority opinion.
2. Respecting the privacy of it's citizens as much as possible.
If you exercise the rights granted to you in the former tenant, do you give up the rights granted to you in the latter?
I realize it's a thin line, but it seems to me that the government is saying: Yes, you are guaranteed your right to privacy...unless we don't like what you have to say. Perhaps that sounds paranoid, but when the FBI rounds up hundreds of thousands of pages about people and organizations whose only offense was expressing an opinion, you have to wonder.
worst president ever.
Communism failed because it requires a perfect world and people within it who are not motivated by greed. Look at every communist or socialist country . In nearly every case you'll find a leadership wholly corrupted by greed and the lust for power. People are people. They're weak and greedy (except for Bill Clinton, of course).
:)
Capitalism works so well because the world and the people in it are imperfect and incapable (as a whole) of not wanting their own "stuff". In spite of what many people think, the brand of capitalism here in good old US of A, has been heavily watered down by socialism.
Capitalism is its purest form is darwinian in nature. If you're incapable of cutting the mustard, you starve or (at a minimum) are less likely likely to reproduce. If only it were so.
For a nice easy read, check out "Animal Farm". Honestly, It's not about animals!!! heh.
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
I don't believe that I have ever witnessed more people talking straight out of their asses than I have today in the above posts. Congratulations, slashdolt.
Maybe nobody is afraid of the FBI but I bet nobody is afraid of the moderator either. You have to admit that this administration has very successfully instituted an atmosphere of paranoia and fear which suits their purposes just fine. They are able to shut down all dissent on all topics. Like the attorney general said "if you disagree with us you are giving aid and comfort to the terrorists". People are afraid to critize the govt and that should scare you.
War is necrophilia.
Read a capsule summary of his views here, if you want to know where the man himself stood.
It is a long whitstanding argument that in a perfect society communism would make a perfect system.
Would it? Why would a system that rewards mediocrity and punish independence and make a perfect system? What incentive does a communist system give for the advancement of science, arts, and humanities? It is in human nature to profit from his own work, and yet communism tells you that you may not profit more than your brother who sits home and does nothing.
The working class? In an ideal capitalist society, the "working class" would have as much opportunity as all the other classes. They can choose to rise themselves from the slums and become financially independent. It is in the interest of a capitalist society to reward those who work hard and make something of themselves. A capitalist society will not reward you for just being born, true. But it will reward you greatly if you work hard.
Ideal capitalism IS the ideal system. It is the only system that fits in with human nature, and it is the only system that can provide for the advancement of the human race, the discarding of useless elements in our society, and the propagation of beneficial ones. Communism gets in the way of progress, because it goes against human nature. Humans are selfish by nature, and yet cannot gratify their selfishness without being rewarded by other humans. That is our greatest strength.
Communism would never work, because it doesn't take into account human desire.
Marx also failed to map out a complete route from capitalism to communism. He left out large chunks in his diatribe about the prolitariate overthrow of the established upper class (I can't spell english, let alone french).
Suddenly everyone will have more needs than abilities. As other people realize they are working their tail off for the rest of the slackers, they will be filled with resentment, and stop producing, or keeping their work to themselves, etc. This would qualify as corruption in your little world, but qualifies as human nature in mine. Why should I work my ass off so you can sit on yours?
Since Einstein got into the US anyway I assume, like a number of ex-Nazi scientists, that his genius overshadowed his supposedly evil Commie tendencies. The ideology of convenience at work.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
I believe the god in question is Quetzalcoatl (http://weber.ucsd.edu/~anthclub/quetzalcoatl/quet zal.htm), the winged serpent, thank you very much.
I now have a heart sacrifice to attend to.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Stick to calling in to talk radio shows, you know what you said so don't deny it.
You are obviously a commie^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hterrorist lover! No REAL American would ever say such a thing. I bet you don't even have the required flags on your car antennae and bumper.
(Getting out my "Little Bastard Snitch" kit)
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
And I can show you millions of homosexuals, whores, thieves, junkies, rapists, murderers, child-molesters, lesbians, drug-dealers, and the like. In your view, Communism would seem to be just one more "lifestyle choice". It's your right to believe that if you wish, but if so, it is my right and obligation to protect my nation from your actions if you should choose to move beyond words and into the realm of violence.
I don't usually respond to trolls but to include homosexuals in with drug-dealers, murderers and rapists shows how completely ignorant you are.
I am a 29 year old lesbian who fought for this country, has a decent job, pays my taxes, has never been arrested and helps old ladies cross the street.
Fuck you, shithead.
It's about the murderous communist regime that took place in cambodia during and after the vietnam war. Or maybe you should read about the Stalin Purges where he killed millions upon millions of his own people, or maybe how the current chicoms persecute their own people,, remember that little event that happened about 10 years ago?? You know,, tanks meet protesters. Oh and then theres veitnam itself, where if you disagreed with the viet cong you ended up with your guts hanging out as a form of torture and/or your head on a stake as a warning to others. Communism is a terrible evil and will always pose a threat to peace untill it's totally destroyed.
Communism is, at it's heart, about communal ownership of property and resources. The family unit then is basically communist. Legally the parents have the ownership rights but functionally everyone does and everyone (unless you have a dysfunctional family) pitches in for the common good and has access to resources (the refrigerator, the car, the tv, etc). Volunteer organizations wouldn't exist unless this was the case also.
The catch is that this only works for groups who believe in the common cause (our family, the Red Cross, etc). As soon as you try to force people who don't care it falls apart and you have to resort to pure self interest (capitalism).
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Ok, surely the FBI had its dark sides.
However, Dana Scully works there, so it
can't be all bad!
Bram (Dana's biggest fan).
Bram Stolk http://stolk.org/tlctc/
You might be interested to know that many philosophers over the years have arrived at a system of morals with the following basis:
"Here are two simple principles, both of which are self-evident: I.--That all men have equal rights to the use and enjoyment of the elements provided by Nature. II.--That each man has an exclusive right to the use and enjoyment of what is produced by his own labor"
That's a quote from a guy called Henry George. Many other interesting figures have weighed in on this land question.
These ideas could potentially lead to a version of capitalism which is pure yet fair and prevents massive inequality. Unfortunately, the person in the street tends to be very wary of the ideas, due to a combination of misinformation, fear of change, and failure of the imagination. And the very wealthy have no motivation for change.
"To prove a legal title to land one must trace it back to the man who stole it." -- Lloyd George
I just read the book, it was great! Jerome has a lot to offer not just about Einstein but about the history of McCarthyism. There is a great website about the book that I found www.theeinsteinfile.com
Suited to the atmoshphere of this planet. GO HOME.
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.