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."
Are you implying that the governments should in general be suspicious of communists? Why not libertarians, conservatives or some other political party?
Is that it, eh? Democracy but only on certain terms.
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
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!
Communists? Who cares? Yes, communism ultimatly failed, but, in a perfect world without corruption and greed, it would make for a perfect system. [...] Communism was one answer (opinion: it was a step in the right direction, but the step was much to large).
I don't usually like responding to ACs, especially ones who are so very wrong, but what the heck.
I used to hold that same opinion. Then, over a span of a dozen years or so, my opinion changed. I started thinking about the moral case of communism versus capitalism, and that put things in an entirely different light.
The practical case for communism is clear: improve the quality of life for all through collective ownership of the means of production. If it worked without flaws, I think it probably would, in fact, reduce things like poverty and inequity. From this, it makes a sort of sense that communism should be tried.
But the moral case is very different. Put simply, and as I understand it, capitalism is based on the assumption that you own what you produce. Communism is based on the assumption that you do not own what you produce. In other words, in a capitalist world, if I plant a field and grow corn, it's mine to do with as I will: eat it, hoard it, sell it, or let it rot in the fields. In a communist world, that corn rightfully belongs to the state as a whole-- not in the sense of state as government, but in the sense of the group of all people who live in my community/county/world/whatever. Government is just a necessary evil to enact the will of the people as a whole.
The moral case for capitalism just makes more sense to me: the corn (or whatever) wouldn't exist without me, so I own it. If you want corn, grow your own. The fact that communism is based on an opposite idea means that, to me, it's tantamount to stealing my corn. That pretty much ruins the moral case in my eyes.
Yes, capitalism leads fairly directly to bad things, like poverty and such, but that's not the point. Are you familiar with the idea of fruit from a poisoned tree? It's a legal doctrine; you can probably learn more by googling "Felix Frankfurter." No, seriously. Stop laughing.
The doctrine of fruit from a poisoned tree simply says that anything you gain through improper means is itself improper. The legal use of this doctrine applies to rules of evidence, but it's also useful for considering moral issues. Basically, the idea is the opposite of the old saw, "The ends justify the means."
So, given that communism springs from a fundamentally wrong moral position (this is ultimately a judgment call, of course) that's our poisoned tree. The benefits we might reap from it-- like reducing poverty and inequity and all that-- are the fruit. When I thought of it in those terms, that pretty much decided it for me.
Like I said though, this is fundamentally a judgment call. It's just unfortunate that the ideals of communism enacted through a few powerful men have turned out to be so very dangerous. I'm almost to the point where I'm willing to say that the ideas themselves are dangerous, due to their potential for abuse and horror.
Flamebait my rear excretement generation duct. I am beginning to think that we have some leftists here whose feelings are easily hurt.
He who has no