Einstein's 1,427-Page F.B.I. File 509
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."
No surprising. (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Not at all (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:No surprising. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:No surprising. (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, Communism is so obviously an effective threat against Capitalism that it was...erm...never mind.
Re:No surprising. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No surprising. (Score:2)
Re:No surprising. (Score:2)
So? In Belgium and in France, to name a few, there were until a few years ago (or even still now in France?) Communist Parties, and in Belgium we still have a communist-minded party. Despite that, neither country has become communist, so it's hardly a reason to hunt the members of those parties down.
Besides, what happened to free speech, and being free to believe whatever you want?
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".
So now it's a crime to be homosexual?
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.
If and only if I choose to go into the realm of violence, yes. But that's not what communism is about.
Re:No surprising. (Score:2)
So what? These people had every right to do so. The real irony is that McCarthy attacked people for being "unamerican" by himself attacking the US Consitution.
Similarly whilst Hoover was having the FBI indulge his paranoia organised crime bosses were laughing.
Re:No surprising. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you have to remember that at the time, any vaguely leftist group was considered to be a "communist front group". Although, technically, even if he was a member of the Karl Marx Fan Club, that should have been perfectly acceptable in a democratic society.
Re:No surprising. (Score:2)
Re:No surprising. (Score:2)
If "the people" are to choose those that will govern them, should they not also be able to choose how they govern? That seems pretty reasonable to me.
Sure, in 1776 some guys got together and designed a form of government built upon ideas from two millenia prior. But to assume that they somehow hit on the magic formula for a perfect government is very naive. If we don't constantly evolve our ideas of government, we will stagnate and eventually "fail" much like people argue Communism did. Of course, they ignore the simple fact that the USSR was only one implementation of Communism.
Republic = "Will of the people?" (Score:2)
In a pure democracy, wouldn't OJ simpson have been killed, even if he was innocent, simply because a majority of the populace thought him guilty?
We DEMOCRATICALLY elect REPRESENTATIVES to run the government, and they should know when to do what's popular and when to do what's right and unpopular.
McCarthyism was, by and large, a witch hunt. And witch hunts are never good, and exactly the kind of thing that we have representative government to protect us from.
Re:No surprising. (Score:2)
Intersting in the files also are all these offended people who wrote to the FBI about how Einstein was an evil communist and how it was not normal that he was let in the USA, and how he came only for the money he'd get.
About the "being let in the USA" by the way, it is worth noting that the US embassies were specifically told that he was to be refused entrance.
Re:evil != communist (Score:2)
And capitalism is known for its unique ability to ruin developing economies in a very short time. Capitalism is fantastic if you are an elite member of a highly developed nation. Capitalism favors those with the most capital. Using the IMF, World Bank, and now the WTO, capitalism's poster child gets to dominate the economies of the world.
You say that without foreign investment, China would employ fewer factory shoe makers, increasing unemployment. Since China doesn't have a sizeable market for $100 shoes, Nike benefits China. In a sense that is true. In exchange for huge capital returns to Nike's investors, thousands of Chinese have a job that the average unemployed American wouldn't accept due to its lack of reasonable pay, benefits, and safety.
However, if China were given some time to build internal investment, profits would remain within their economic system for reinvestment. They would inevitably create a healthy market for shoes. Not only would they get jobs, but they'd get to wear the shoes.
Capitalism's unwavering focus on efficient use of resources to maximize capital gain may work fine in a small community in which everyone owns resources equally (the basis of socialism) and will gain from their use. But as soon as one community gains power over another, the resources of the weak are used to benefit the powerful first. As the U.S. is the capital and military leader, it will always be the one investing in foreign markets to use their resources to maximize corporate profits. In this case, the resources are desparate Chinese laborers that will work in conditions that U.S. labor law deems illegal.
Re:No surprising. (Score:2)
Although, technically, even if he was a member of the Karl Marx Fan Club, that should have been perfectly acceptable in a democratic society.
Was Einstein arrested for his views? No. Was he censored from talking about his views? No. The government simply kept a file on him. So what?
Re:No surprising. (Score:2)
Hoover was usually more subtle than that, and tended to use the information to blackmail and discredit people rather than arrest them, particularly since most of Hoover's victims weren't committing crimes.
--
Benjamin Coates
Re:No surprising. (Score:2)
I think the disagreement here is that many of us feel that there needs to be a justification for collecting the information
The justification is that the man was one of the smartest people on the planet. Having an FBI file doesn't mean you're "bad", it means you're "important".
Re:No surprising. (Score:2)
Would you be happy if the FBI kept a file on someone for posting on Slashdot?
Depends what they posted.
For using a non-MS OS?
No, but only because that would be a waste of taxpayer money.
For calling himself and his peers a hacker?
Depends on the circumstances.
Re:No surprising. (Score:3, Informative)
Are you a troll? Or are you getting this from other sources? The article NEVER mentions this. If you are getting this from other sources, then remember that "communist front groups" included everything from the Hollywood Arts Council on down.
Perhaps a better review, for non-trolls out there, is the Nando Times [nando.net] review, which cuts to the chase:
The FBI probe of Einstein took on urgency after atom spy Klaus Fuchs was arrested in February 1950 and Einstein made a radio appeal for an end to the arms race.
Within a day, Hoover ordered agents to start gathering "derogatory information." For the next five years - until Einstein's death in April 1955 - Hoover tried to get the goods on the scientist as a communist agent, only to have one "fizzled lead" after another, as Jerome puts it, and several informants turned out to be frauds.
"The most persuasive argument that Einstein was not involved in espionage is that he didn't share the political commitment to the Soviet Union and communism that motivated virtually all the successful Soviet spies during the first half of the century," Jerome writes.
Re:No surprising. (Score:2)
"An investigation was conducted by the FBI regarding the famous physicist because of his affiliation with the Communist Party. Einstein was a member, sponsor, or affiliated with thirty-four communist fronts between 1937-1954. He also served as honorary chairman for three communist organizations."
And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.) (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.) (Score:2)
>wrong in a Republic with strong Democratic ties.
>If the majority of the public finds that there is
>no place for Communism in America, then policy
>should be made on that Will.
No... we have a Bill of Rights to guarantee that the majority of the public does *not* completely determine things. If 99.9% of the population wanted to exclude everyone with red hair, it wouldn't matter. The right to espouse communist views is protected by the 1st amendment. What you're saying is pretty scary.
Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.) (Score:2)
Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.) (Score:2)
I see what you mean. Those darn communists want to tear up our Constitution, so they shouldn't get that guarantee of free speech. Or equal protection under the law. Or the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. Since they disagree with "us", we can oppress them as much as we want to, because there's 51% of "us" and we make the rules, by God!
You have absolutely no idea what America is all about. If the majority of the public finds that there is no place for ANY school of thought or belief in America, then THE MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC IS WRONG. The PURPOSE of your vaunted Republic is to protect minorities from oppression. The idea is that We the People elect representatives to be wise stewards of our political power, and that does NOT include locking up people who disagree with us.
Now, you won't catch me arguing that the government is in fact acting as a wise steward, but there I go again with my childish idealism.
Idealism which I will defend unto my death.
Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.) (Score:2)
Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.) (Score:2)
Again, I wouldn't argue that this system works as designed. Your (erroneous) definition of a Republic is just a democracy by another name. When was the last time your Congresscritter asked you for your opinion?
Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.) (Score:2)
A republic can be democratic (USA, France, Ireland, Argentine) or not (Viêt-Nàm, China, Syria, Irak).
If you're looking for an antonym for republic, monarchy is the thing for you. There, the whole public sphere is concentrated in one person, the ruling monarch, as opposed to a republic, where it is diffused throughout every person.
And monarchies can also be democratic (U.K., Canada, Belgium, Spain) or not (Nepal, Morocco, Saudi Arabia).
Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.) (Score:2)
Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.) (Score:2)
The US is a constitutional federal republic, with a written constitution. That written constitution, explicitally prevents the state rendering any minority opinion against the law. The only thing which can mean "there is no place for Communism in America" is a constitutional ammendment.
Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.) (Score:2)
In the book fahrenheit 451, the people hated books and things about them. The gov't had educated people in them that realized that the book burning was wrong. Congress sat there, biding its time, while the people watched tv.
Would it have been a better world if congress had 100% followed the will of the majority?
Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.) (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:No surprising. (Score:2)
And we all know the US would never consider anything similar...
Let alone have a US funded entity overthrow a democratic government.
Re:No surprising. (Score:2)
What? Einstein wrote letters to Roosevelt urging him to begin production of nuclear weapons, because he feared there would be no other way to stop Hitler and fascist takeovers in Europe.
Sure, he was against the use of nuclear weapons, what kind of maniac would enjoy the idea of vaporizing a few hundred thousand people in a shot? Despite that, he still supported it. Your speculation is going a bit off the point of the article.
Re:No surprising. (Score:2)
Yeah... That, and the completely insane idea that AC current was more efficient than DC current.
Tesla and Edison probably split because of their differening ideas on the efficacy of AC current vs. DC. Edison firmly believed that DC was the way to go and did Everything in his power to destroy Tesla and his AC ideas. Like Bill Gates, however, he was able to recognize when an idea was stronger than his marketing clout and turn to an 'embrace and extend' approach.
Tesla died a (relative) pauper because he was willing to give away his AC patents to General Electric rather than see Edison win with his DC ideas. Without Tesla, we would not have things like transformers, AC motors and long-distance power transmission. Edison, on the other hand, had money and marketing on his side.
that hoover... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:that hoover... (Score:2)
imagine... (Score:3, Funny)
"J Edgar Hoover discovers e=mc squared..."
"Mr Hoover, how did you come by this discovery?"
"Months of long hard work by my associates and I."
"And what does this mean to the world of science?"
"I'll have to get back to you on that one."
A typical page (Score:5, Interesting)
How subversive. Seriously though, Einstein was a high-profile scientist in a sexy new field and (if you believe the FBI) was involved with several Communist groups
That said, just because the USSR fell apart doesn't mean we're out of the nuclear woods yet. Einstein and the FAS may still have some things to teach us.
Pacer
Out of the nuclear woods? (Score:3, Informative)
In fact, I have been reading Dr. Helen Caldicott [noradiation.org]'s new book, [tatteredcover.com]
The New Nuclear Danger and it is very clear reading and to-the-point. There is a review of the book here [mapcruzin.com]. Quite upseating read. If it is even remotely accurate... I'm sure Dr. Helen Caldicott is on the FBI's watch list, together with Norm Chomsky [stickykeys.org]. It is obviously they are both not patriots. Since I find their writings illuminating, I wonder if this makes me anti-patrioitic?
A brief summary... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Einstein was born in Germany. He is a member of the following socities: 1) Cause for nuclear disarmament 2) Society for equality in humanity 3) Anti War Group Kill him, that UnAmerican bastard!!!"
You may consider a 1400page file big.. (Score:4, Funny)
(someone had to say it!)
Was he in cahoots with Rambaldi? (Score:2)
Fifties flashbacks... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Fifties flashbacks... (Score:2)
When the Netherlands declares extraterritorial jurisdiction over Americans and brings them to trial there, I'd damn well expect the US to do what was necessary to get them back.
--
Benjamin Coates
Re:Fifties flashbacks... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Fifties flashbacks... (Score:2, Informative)
The better-informed Europeans realise that Russia and China also oppose the International Criminal Court.
Re:Fifties flashbacks... (Score:2)
What a pathetically sheltered and out of touch twit you are. You don't even know half of what you should know about the subject to make an informed descision about it. Your eyes gloss over at the thought of a "glamourous" weapon like a primitive nuke while you completely ignore the all of the other bombings and battles that went on during that war.
If you wish to fabricate Allied misconduct in WWII, Nagasaki should be the last of your concerns.
BTW, the US was quite content to let the rest of the world destroy itself until the US was attacked directly.
When someone declares war on you, you go and destroy them. You are only doing that which they have promised to do to you if only they still had their Armies and their arms factories.
Re:Fifties flashbacks... (Score:2)
The US may merely NOT TRUST an international court. The US is historically an isolationist nation. It could have quite easily never even taken part in either world war. So, a little paranoia about "world government" doesn't necessarily imply anything sinister.
Re:Fifties flashbacks... (Score:2)
While I admit that there should have been a formal declaration of war on Afghanistan, I think you drawing comparisons between criminal prosecutions and acts of war are quite disengenuous.
Re:Fifties flashbacks... (Score:2)
Notice how we're all posting anonymously on this topic?
Slashdot has your IP address. And the Patriot Act gives the government the power to get it from slashdot. What's the point?
More to the point (Score:2, Interesting)
His 'crime' was that he was willing to think. (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think. (Score:2)
So, yes, there were abuses of power by the FBI. Yes, Einstein was innocent. However, there was a very real threat, and it is understandable, if not totally acceptable, that the FBI would keep tabs on prominent research scientists with known communist sympathies.
Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think. (Score:2)
Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think. (Score:2)
They could of have messed with them. It would be funny if they said, "No, the Amerika boom was shaped like bunny rabbit, not a mushroom".
(* sig: Ossama should have bombed Disneyland, Hollywood and Redmond. *)
Sounds like the FBI should open a file on you too.
Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think. (Score:2)
I forgot his name... I don't believe he was ever convicted of anything (the information he knew was too useful and all that).
I must admit, while I don't particularly like that India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, I'm glad at least that they both have them. I can't imagine nuclear weapons being used, except when only one party in a conflict has them.
Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think. (Score:2)
No, we haven't been "lucky", the US has been working damned hard to see that they haven't been used, despite the destrutive aspirations of petty dictators and superpowers alike.
Wrong. Show me one single large-scale implementation of communism that's actually worked. That's right, there aren't any. The _concept_ of communism isn't evil, but it's absolutely impossible to make it work without coercion and force. It's based on the compulsory sacrifice of the individual for the greater good, and, as much as some people might pretend otherwise, humans don't work that way.
Some of them are, at least indirectly, but most of them are not. (No credible source indicates any US support of Bin Laden, for example.) In foreign policy the US, like all other nations, is ultimately pragmatic. Short of moving in and taking over completely (which while perhaps practical is usually frowned upon) one sometimes one must choose between supporting the lesser of two local evils. To claim that the US "isn't much better" only demonstrates how unfamilar you are with the horrific abuses that were (and are) a part of daily life within those other regimes you idealize.
They weren't crimes. He wasn't arrested. He was investigated by the FBI for what they considered suspicious activities and to make sure he wasn't sharing classified information with people that would not share his idealistic bent. The purpose of the FBI is to investigate, and many, many prominent and obscure people of all occupations and political stripes were investigated. Was it right? Was it necessary? At the time it was very hard to say.
They weren't really concerned about ideas, they were concerned about actions. Hoover and McCarthy were often paranoid, but spies are real, and sometimes spying results in the deaths of large numbers of people. The threats posed by the USSR and China at the time were also very real, and a country where memories of WWII and Korea were still fresh was far more willing to take those threats seriously than we are from our vantage point 50 years removed.
Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think. (Score:3, Insightful)
And there has never been a non-currupt democratic regime, nor a republic or totalitarian regime, so what's your point? You think you are arguing that communism must be corrupt, yet all you're saying is that every government set up by humans has been corrupt. And the sky is blue. So what?
Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think. (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact of the matter is that there has never been a non-corrupt communist regime, which should lead one instantly to deduce that it is communism itself which is the problem
It "should"? No, it most emphatically should NOT lead one instantly to deduce anything of a general nature about communism. That is an invalid logical inference. A fault of reasoning. An incorrect deduction. An unscientific conclusion. You've come to a conclusion but you've left out the part where you explain how you got there.
There has never in the history of humanity been a democratic government that was free of corruption either. What, according to your flawed methodology of reasoning, "should" we deduce about democracy from that?
For the mentally impaired, I'm not advocating communism here at all, I'm just pointing out that ACs method of reasoning is incorrect.
It might well be that communism cannot work, but AC here has not demonstrated that. NOTHING can be concluded from merely pointing to the fact that it hasn't worked anywhere *yet*. That would have been much like stating, around 1880, "The fact of the matter is that man has never flown, which should lead one instantly to deduce that man will never fly, it is impossible". Not a valid logical inference at all.
Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think. (Score:2, Insightful)
That would be true only if you disregarded all the various violent external U.S. actions in South America, Africa, and Asia as well as those of the totalitarian regimes the U.S. has set up throughout Latin and South America. Sure, the U.S. tends to avoid killing its own citizens, but our leaders seem to have no qualms about supporting mass murder in other countries.
The over 5,000 children that die in Iraq every month since 1991 from sanctions overshadows any current Communist actions, and it's just the first example.
The point is not that Communism is the best form of government/monetary policy. The point is that when you give lots of power to humans, they tend to exercise it unwisely at the expense of others, regardless of the type of government. The problem as I see it is that because Capitalism's goal is to maximise the control of resources to a few, it allows a much larger abuse of power than other economic models.
For example, under Socialism, the farm workers themselves determine how farmland is used. If twenty farmers "go nuts" and decide to use tons of chemicals on their farm, they only affect one farm. However, under Capitalism, if one transnational corporation "goes nuts" and uses the same pesticides, they will affect the food for several countries instead of 500 people.
Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think. (Score:2)
Communist governments killed 100 million people. See the Black Book of Communism [harvard.edu]. Give me a break. It's amazing there are still people defending communism after the experience of the twentieth century.
Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think. (Score:2)
You: Under Soviet Communism, farm workers did not determine how land was to be used.
Fine, but I said socialism, not communism. My only point is that declaring communism itself -- or any form of government -- evil by nature is rediculous. Totalitarian rule is by far the most efficient in terms of deciding laws, and Mother Theresa might even be able to pull it off. But I wouldn't want my state to use it. It's too open for easy abuse.
Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think. (Score:2)
I can't think of a single war even that has produced 30 million deaths, but I don't memorize many war statistics. One is that the U.S. supported (funded, trained, and provided military equipment) Indonesia in it's recent 25 year war against East Timor. One third of East Timor's 750,000 population has been eradicated to date, and the majority of it occurred in the past 2-3 years.
Under socialism nobody gets to decide anything for it the decisions are reserved to chosen few who are (unlike a corporation) under no external pressure to do anything sensible.
You can have ownership and control by the state. Russia had essentially a ruling class that decided how resources were to be used statewide. In the U.S., those with the capital (corporations) get to decide how resources are used. Current socialist movements put the control of resources into the hands of those that work them. This has shown up in the U.S. as employee ownership and single proprieterships.
They can rape steal your crops and rape your wife and there is NOTHING you can do about it.
This has nothing to do with the form of government. Situations as you describe, while sensational, have occurred in all societies where law enforcement is weak.
So far , capitalism created the best standard of living for EVERYONE involved.
Please, tell me you do not honestly believe this. Have you traveled to any developing nations? Have you read about U.S. foreign policy? As I mentioned above, there are 250,000 East Timorese that would disagree with you had they not been slaughtered for voting for a local democratic government over rule by the Indonesian military.
millions of people who risk their lives to get into this, what you call "abuse of power", are the best proof what is a superior economical system.
I never claimed that capitalism wasn't good for the capitalist elite; in fact I claimed the opposite. Sure, it's turned out well for a lot of Americans, but at the expense of people living in the developing nations. Some of them clearly benefit, but mostly it's those that set up the systems to export profit to the transnational corporations. That many people come to the U.S. supports both views, not one over the other.
Finally some advice: by insulting someone, you're much less likely to get a lively discussion and debate. It will likely devolve into more name-calling and anger. Frankly, I'm 100% behind reducing both of those.
Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think. (Score:4, Insightful)
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."
Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think. (Score:2)
You're saying that I shouldn't participate in political discussion unless I know how "the world should be run."
No, I said what I meant: Just because you might be good at a particular subject, doesn't mean you can apply the same reasonings to another subject.
[i said] If you are a socialist, then you have no clue about how the world should be run, and should just stay away. [you said] 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?"
I meant "should" in the sense that we would all be better off if you stayed away until you learned more about reality, not in the sense that you should be "forbidden" to voice your opinion. Feel free. But that doesn't make you less wrong and misguided.
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.
Here is where you went off the deep end and began manufacturing things based not on what I actually said, but on your own biases.
Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think. (Score:2)
Uh, no. Freedom feeds the people, fascism starves the people. As I said recently [slashdot.org], the world is hungry not because of unequal distribution of wealth, it's because of unequal distribution of capitalism and freedom.
NYT login (Score:2)
login: slashdotid
pass: slashdot
Commitment stregthened (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
More FBI files (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems like a little?
Seems like a lot?
Glad an unbiased police is there to protect the citizens huh?
The FBI is nothing compared to Google (Score:2, Funny)
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
Re:The FBI is nothing compared to Google (Score:3, Funny)
Re:More FBI files (Score:2)
In a different light (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:More FBI files (Score:3, Interesting)
Make sense? Martin Luther King was an incredibly charismatic public speaker. He had the ability to sway the hearts and minds of millions of people, whether they were black, white green or purple. Grass roots movements always pose the greatest threat to a body in power, thus they are always first to be targeted, destabilized and squashed. Look at any movement, right or left, and you will begin to see a subtle trend. It takes an incredible amount of human inertia to change or supplant an existing power base, but it is possible.
Coronation, n.:
The ceremony of investing a sovereign with the outward and visible signs of his divine right to be blown skyhigh with a dynamite bomb. -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Re:More FBI files (Score:3, Informative)
In defense of the Black Panthers (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [commondreams.org], or this [hartford-hwp.com] (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.
From a bigger perspective (Score:2)
Sure the war lords are going to track and manipulate anything that can have an effect upon their control over others.
Don't we all know this by now?
War lords create problems that otherwise don't exist or can be eliminated, how else are they to know they have control?
How to get your own file... (Score:2)
J. Edgar Hoover:Closest thing we had to a dictator (Score:5, Informative)
I saw a History Channel documentary on Mr. Hoover a while back. This was one scary dude. Einstein wasn't alone in FBI harrasment. It turns out that hoover spied on practically every celebrety, out of the closet homosexual, and political opponent during his reign. He dislike one congressman so intensely that he had a sting operation set him up to be publically arrested for 'lewed conduct' with another man (back when homosexual acts were still somewhat illegal). He kept the celebrity files in a personal filing cabinet because he was a gossip monger, and loved to have the inside scoop.
He even opened a file on George Orwell, who sent him a copy of 1984, not realizing that this man WAS "Big Brother".
Today, Hoover is remembered more for his reformation of the FBI from a 2 bit gumshoe detective agency into the lean, mean, crime fighting machine that it is today. But what a price we had to pay for that. No, Roosevelt was not the closest thing that we had to a dictator; this man was.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:J. Edgar Hoover:Closest thing we had to a dicta (Score:2)
I feel soiled alluvasudden.. (Score:2)
I'm a left-leaning right-wing conservative (don't laugh. yes it's possible) but I understand why US intelligence would keep an eye on this guy. I would, too, were I in that position. I wouldn't be happy about doing so, but I'd do it.
History shows that ole Einy was cool and self consistent with his own values (unless you were married to him. hint, hint) but that eval() is from our present perspective.
At the time, however, it seemed that thought == explosive power (true.. it does now, too) that could move entire populations to do Really Sto0p1d Things(tm).
The French and Bolshevik revolutions had already 'proved' the principle.
In the face of that prior art, folks, I'd be paranoid, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I feel soiled alluvasudden.. (Score:2)
Alan Ginsbeg [upenn.edu]
FBI Film Industry [paperlessarchives.com]
John Lennon [lennonfbifiles.com]
A whole host of famous people
has always proved to me that the snoops were spending a lot of time snooping on people who its questionable as to why they were being snooped upon.
But, as my Creed has always been: "He who dies with the most pages wins..."
I have yet to get my file yet through the FOIA [usdoj.gov], but will one day, just for a larf..
Re:I feel soiled alluvasudden.. (Score:2)
Heres the link for the whole host of other famous people, straight from the source:
FBI SPies on famous folks [fbi.gov]
was this filed under the right heading? (Score:3, Insightful)
Edgar who? (Score:2)
"Politics is for the moment; an equation is forever"
In a hundred years nobody will know, or care, who J. Edgar Hoover was and in a 1000 years you probably will not even be able to find a historical reference.
However most literate people will still know who Einstein was.
Upcoming Local Democracy Conference (Score:2)
Great discussion going on in this thread. Keep at it!
Just wanted to let you know that two major pro-democracy events are happening in Madison, Wisconsin later this year. First, a coalition has formed in response to the U.S. Conference of Mayors having a huge conference here, and only inviting lobbyists, not citizens, to participate. Check out the Cities for People! [citiesforpeople.org] web site for more info.
Incidentally, RadFest 2002 [wisc.edu] should be excellent. Many progressive thinkers are gathering for that.
Third, Community Power 2002, the first-ever local democracy conference, is happening in November. There's no site for it just yet, but info will be posted eventually on the Progressive Dane web site [prodane.org].
Other files .. (Score:3, Interesting)
-Sean
Re:When I grow up (Score:2)
[I think that should do it. ; )
-b ]
Re:I'm glad I don't live in America... (Score:2)
THey would just haul you up in front of a bunch of witch-hunters if they thought you had any communist leanings and probably try to strip you and your family of all it's assets and then throw you in jail..
but you were free to talk about it.
Re:I'm glad I don't live in America... (Score:2)
Re:I'm glad I don't live in America... (Score:2)
Re:I'm glad I don't live in America... (Score:2)
If anything, something like DeCSS ensures that the original spirit of copyright law will be upheld rather than copyright being successfully used to rape, pillage and plunder.
The US Code sufficiently addressed the problem of "piracy" long before the DMCA was concocted.
Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay? (Score:3, Funny)
Waitaminit -- these people are leftists, right? You'd think they'd be for welfare, wouldn't you? ;-)
Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay? (Score:2)
Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay? (Score:2)
Then there are secondary questions - should roads be maintained by government, or should they all be build and tolled by private companies ? How about broadcast frequencies, should they be managed or just left as free for all ?
Just curious, where would you draw the line ?
Re:Feynman's file? (Score:2)
Was it really just talc? Perhaps it was a code. Reassemble the talc into a block and the secret message is uncovered. ;-)
[Actually, I don't think he actually sent the talc in the end, that was just a gag he was considering.]