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."
That is precisely the point.
The issue at hand is the development of an international legal system which has teeth. A system which will might cause a mass-murderer, for instance, to think twice before killing a village full of innocent people.
Such a system must have extraterritorial jurisdiction over any signatory state as far as some very particular cases are concerned. In the absence of this power the court is meaningless. While I'm no fan of the current administration, I respect their concern that the court could become a forum for politically-motivated prosecutions. The wise solution to this is not to actively subvert the court itself, but to become a serious party to the system, and to work to make it fair and balanced.
Are you seriously proposing that the blessed state of being "An American" should trump prosecution for mass murder? You might argue that the American legal system itself should handle this prosecution, but that ain't gonna help make some warlord in South Berzerkistan think twice before levelling a village with his black-market Soviet gunship. This is the missing element of vision in the American policy. The rest of the world can go hang, it seems to be saying.
The USA is in the process of withdrawing itself from what little connection it had with international law. It is becoming a rogue state. Right now the Europeans are looking quietly at one another, and at the Russians, and the Chinese, and thinking... If the USA chooses to make itself the singular enemy of all mankind, where does one stand for security?
Just because Einstein associated with a lot of socialists and communists does not establish that he believed in ALL of the tenants of these organizaions. Just as a person who votes Republican may be in favor of the "pro-choice" stance on abortion.
I have read some stuff written by Einstein and he was, I believe, merely scared to death that there was going to be a nuclear war. And he, as someone who could well imagine the implications, and as someone with a good moral compass, decided to use his celebrity status to try and save the world from destruction.
Its more srprising to me that after the slaughter of WW1 and WW2, that someone like Einstein, who was plainly looking for a novel solution to the problem or war, was under investigation by the government, instead of being supported by the government.
I think the root of this investigation is that governments like to have a ready pool of kids to send off to their death. Anyone that interferes with that ability touches on how government leaders define their power, and probably their manhood.
It is also interesting that 25 or so years later people would be practising what Einstein was proposing, to end the Vietnam vs. the USA war.
A LOT of Slashdotters could learn this lesson. Just because you are a good programmer (or pick your geek subject) doesn't mean you know beans about how the world should be run.
I'm a good programmer. Does that mean I shouldn't be passing on my opinions about how the world should be run?
Well, let's be fair - that's not what you're saying. You're saying that I shouldn't participate in political discussion unless I know how "the world should be run." There is no other possible conclusion from your post: you're saying that Einstein shouldn't have experimented with Marxism because he obviously didn't understand how people work (and this, in turn, is obvious from his Communist associations). You're saying that sympathizing with socialists shows just how utterly incapable Einstein was to participate in political actions.
Now, you wrote clearly, so there's no need to paraphrase; we can see what you're saying through your own words:
If you are a socialist, then you have no clue about how the world should be run, and should just stay away.
In short, you're telling me to shut the fuck up because I disagree with you. Now, which one of us is "intrinsically anti-freedom?"
Normally, I would tell rabid anti-socialists to form an opinion on Marxism by not by reading anti-Marxist literature but by reading Marx himself, but only after understanding the proper historical framework, by reading John Stuart Mills' On Liberty, Tocqueville's Souvenirs of the Revolution of 1848, and perhaps some of the proceedings of the English parlement on factory workers during 1846-1847. That's normally what I would ask of the rabid anti-socialist. However, I don't ask this of you, since you've already formed an opinion that "Socialism is intrinsically anti-freedom."
I'm neither a communist, a socialist, nor a Marxist - but I know the difference between the three. Economically, I'm more likely to agree with Adam Smith than with Engels. However, unlike you or M. Le Pen, I realize that there is nothing intrinsically dangerous about studying and sharing the teachings of Marx, or even forming political associations based upon Marxist ideology.
I believe my Anonymous Comrade said it best: "You, my friend, are a facist bastard."
If the majority of the public finds that there is no place for Communism in America, then policy should be made on that Will.
Some other people:
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances.
So, what's the point here? Why were these words spoken?
If you read Rousseau, you'll see that he says almost exactly what you're saying: nobody can go against the will of the sovereign whole.
However, the writers of the above words also dealt with another issue, an issue that Rousseau didn't touch: the so-called "tyranny of the majority."
Perhaps I may quote someone to better express what I mean by this trite concept:
Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.
Now, in an ideal democratic society, I wouldn't be afraid to attribute this citation, and the idea would be considered on its own merit rather than on preconceived ideas of the author; however, I'm afraid I'll lose all credibility if I mention the author of this quote, so I'll leave it to you to research google if you're interested.
The point? We don't live in a perfect representative republic; the founders of our republic realized that a perfect representative republic would be disasterous. We have limits on what we can vote on (for a more in-depth analysis, I would recommend Tocqueville's Democracy in America). Whether or not these limits have been respected is another debate, but I believe they were added for good reason.
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.