Subversives In South Carolina Mostly Safe 200
sabt-pestnu sends in an update on our story about South Carolina and subversives. "According to Eugene Volokh, the Raw Story article has got it backwards. Westlaw says that the cited statute dates back to 1951, when a lot of anti-Communist statutes were being enacted nationwide. What brought Raw Story's attention to it may be that South Carolina is once again trying to repeal the archaic law. And in any event, a half-century-old case (Yates vs. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957)) took most of the teeth out of such laws."
In other words ... (Score:2, Funny)
Mostly harmless.
Re:In other words ... (Score:5, Funny)
Please reference section 42 of your Slashdot User Agreement, and you will find it necessary to submit yourself to 30 lashes with a wet noodle, and turn in your geek card. You should hurry before your late.
Sorry about that. Ford only wrote "Mostly Harmless", not "Completely apathetic". You should have been aware of the rules. They were clearly posted.
In the cellar...
In the disused lavatory...
Clearly marked with the sign "Beware Of The Leopard"...
In the bottom of the locked file cabinet...
Under a mostly dead parrot.
Like I said, clearly posted.
Re: (Score:2)
You should hurry before your late.
Late as in "the late Anonymous Coward"?
Re: (Score:2)
We only have so much storage in the infinite improbability storage drive (no relation to some other product we've heard exists in a starship). We can't include every word that's submitted. Our focus groups have shown that the readers lose interest after just a couple words, so that was sufficient. Mr. Prefect had been advised to keep his entries as short as possible. He knew better than to submit such a long entry for such an uninteresting blue-green planet out in the backwaters of the Mi
loud buzzer noise (Score:2)
Re:In other words ... (Score:4, Interesting)
And also in the Guide (the book within the book, an encyclopedia much like wikipedia) it's the definition and advice for the Planet Earth before it was destroyed. Mostly Harmless.
Given the events of September 2008, does this mean South Carolina can put the CEOs of Goldman Sachs, AIG, and JP Morgan Chase in jail for their (largely successful) attempt to overthrow the government of the United States?
Re: (Score:2)
Undermining the stability of the economy may be a bad thing, and should be punishable if it can be proven they did so with knowledge of the potential outcomes, and for their own profit and benefit. However, undermining the economic stability of a nation is not in itself equivalent to an attempt to overthrow a government, nor does it include the additional requirements of the Smith Act in that is must a) be intended to be done both by force of violence, and at the soonest opportunity, b) recruits brought in
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
a) Economic instability is a form of violence- and as proof, our government just paid out a huge ransom to prevent it.
b) I'm pretty sure large numbers of brokers who work for those companies were told that if they could get enough foreclosures, the government would step in and bail them out, while earning huge transaction fees in the process.
c) You have a point that they've already registered.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, reading it isn't exactly the same as joining the party either. ...and in todays world, do you think there's a single sane person who believes the Communist Party is actually a group of violent people hellbent on overthrow of the US government through force?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And no, those guys had no interest in overthrowing the US government; if they did that then who'd be around to pay them billions and billions of taxpayer dollars?
That was the purpose for overthrowing and taking control of the government- to force a payment of tribute, just like any other conqueror.
Doh! (Score:5, Funny)
How do I withdraw my application?
Re: (Score:2)
subversion (Score:2)
Dude, I've gotta explain why I thought they were talking about subversion, which I'm sure will go over real well.
Re:subversion (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because in 1927 Islam was basically irrelevant to English society, and Zionism was very different to what it is today.
Furthermore, GP is probably living in an area where the only religious nutjobs who matter are Christian, and so is beng slightly parochial.
Finally, Judaism was not of great significance for most of history, and the Islamic peoples lost their power at about the same time as their religion became oppressive, so they too had less potential to cause harm.
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, Judaism was not of great significance for most of history
It has been pretty influential though. Thing of the number of Jewish scientists, writers etc: something that can be attributed to a religious and cultural respect for learning, and, perhaps, a reaction too persecution.
Islamic peoples lost their power at about the same time as their religion became oppressive
Intolerant versions of Islam did exist at times and places when it was powerful. The current rise in fundamentalism seems to be rooted in once particularly group of nutcases, the Saudis, getting more power (oil = money = power). I heard Fatima Bhutto (yes, once of that family) talking about ho
Re: (Score:2)
Who funded the Taliban? Where does Osama Bin laden come from? Where does the money for fundamentalist madrasas come from?
For a brief period, Osama and co were funded by the US in an attempt to kill as many Soviets as possible, in addition to the usual suspects (eg Saudi). IIRC, the Pakistani intelligence also helped the Taliban gain power. Other than those brief anomalies, your point mostly stands.
Re:subversion (Score:4, Interesting)
In reply to your sig. What about Zionism and Islam? Are you just a religion basher or do you just descriminate against Christians?
As others have pointed out, BR would not have had much exposure to Islam, nor would he have considered them important. From a more modern perspective, though, Zionism doesn't count since it's not a religion, and Islam is currently floundering around, trying to re-fight the battles which Christianity lost centuries ago. Islam isn't "the principal enemy of moral progress" because it's so ass-backwards that they don't even get counted in discussions about morality. Kinda like how the Quakers aren't "enemies of technological progress" because they're such complete luddites that nobody cares what they think.
As for Christianity, the situation's changed a bit since Russel's time, but not enough. The brand of Christianity practiced in most of the western world is generally benign, with the obvious exception of the US. On the other hand, the brand of Christianity being practiced in developing nations is just as regressive as Islam, and even the benign varieties tend to cause harm by teaching people to blindly accept dogmatic statements.
Re: (Score:2)
In societies under duress people have to be ready to sacrifice in order for society to survive - this works better if there is a set of reasons and (possibly false) promises that can justify the sacrifice. Religion is one of such things, Strong nationalistic feelings another but they often
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not. However, it's worth pointing out that *most* religions do preach intolerance of one group or another. What matters, though, isn't the creed you follow, it's how you apply it. In the western world, a lot of people can look at the intolerance of, say, the LGBT community as preached by the Christian texts, and realize that it's a question of context and doesn't really apply to the modern world. They can live in ha
Re:subversion (Score:4, Insightful)
As a Bible-believing aspiring Christian (one who aspires to being worthy of being called a follower of Christ, not one who claims to have attained that aspiration):
I can agree with a lot of what you have to say - almost all of it really. The failures and weaknesses that people should be most concerned with are their own, which they can control, not other people's, which they can't. (And of course that assumes that we agree with one another what constitutes a weakness or failure in the first place, which, even among Christians, we often don't).
The greatest commandments for any Christian, according to Christ Himself, are: (a) to love God with all our being and (b) to love our neighbor as ourselves. This implies tolerance. It implies that we should not attempt to use force, including the force of a state, to inflict our will upon others. It implies that we can disagree and still be friends and still relate to one another. It implies a moral standard that is more concerned with love than with rigid dogma. It does not imply that we turn a blind eye to sin - especially our own - but rather, that we do all we can with God's help to deal with our own, then offer help (NOT judgment or condemnation) to those around us who may want it.
Now, there is a bit more to Christianity than law. We find that we are unable to keep the law. None of us is free from sin in one sort or another. Few if any of us are totally sexually pure. Few of us are truly un-judgmental. Few if any of us always live up to even our own moral standards, much less God's. So we find that, even if we understand and try to follow God's Law of Love, we still will fall short, and thus will find ourselves in need of His forgiveness. And we find in Scripture that this forgiveness is available to all those who trust in Christ. That is not the same as implying that all those who claim to be Christians possess this forgiveness and the eternal life that follows . . . nor that all those who do not so claim are outside of it. But it is wise to seek it where we know it may be found.
Much of this is summed up in the story of Christ forgiving the woman taken in adultery, whom the "religious" leaders of the day were about to stone to death, in accordance with their understanding of Mosaic law, but also in total hypocrisy, as she had done nothing they had not also done: "Neither do I condemn you;" He said, "go, and sin no more."
I am horrified by how badly many "Christians" treat many members of the LGBT community, how many people get hurt as a result, and how badly the Christian message gets distorted in the process. It isn't "do whatever you want and God will look away" and neither is it "do exactly what we say or God will burn you." It is that "God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life." And we are ALL sinners, so we don't have any right to judge anyone else, but we have been given the privilege and responsibility to live according to what we know of God's love (as well as His justice), and also to invite (NOT force) others who are willing to do the same if they wish.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In societies under duress people have to be ready to sacrifice in order for society to survive - this works better if there is a set of reasons and (possibly false) promises that can justify the sacrifice.
Absolutely.
So having religious society is not necessarily harming.
Sorry, that's a non-sequitur. How do you go from "religion can help motivate people" to "religion is not necessarily harmful"? Cocaine addiction can also help motivate people, but is usually quite harmful.
Hell, a government-orchestrated brainwashing program combined with a a carefully designed drug regime can make people not only willing to sacrifice themselves, but make them much more capable of doing so. Would you say that such a program would also be "not necessarily bad"?
I agree - if you'r
Re: (Score:2)
"Islam isn't "the principal enemy of moral progress" because it's so ass-backwards that they don't even get counted...."
Other than by the hundreds of millions of Muslims throughout the world, who run "countries" and stuff, or are present where they can influence modern countries (by stabbing their playwrights and driving their cartoonists into hiding while intimidating their governments into abject political annilingus), I'd have to agree with you.
I'm not worried about collecting a Fatwah on /., but the wor
Parent article was precisely on topic (Score:3, Interesting)
Calling Quakers complete Luddites doesn't make sense; they've got no problems with technology as long as you don't let it distract you from living an authentic life. Amish generally think post-1700s technology gets in the way. But they're both "Historic Peace Churches", along with the Mennonites, and both traditionally wore plain clothes and big hats back in the 1700s. In the case of the Quakers, the hats were because England had a beastly climate, and then many of them moved to North America; I suspect
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If membership is compulsory, membership is meaningless.
Re:You reinforce my point. (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, what? "Quaker" is to The Society of Friends what "Mormon" is to the Church of Latter Day Saints; a colloquial term for church members. I suppose that some Quakers out there might be offended by the term, but I've never heard of it, and there are actually a decent number of them in my area.
As for preaching against their fellow man... no, not really. The Quakers are pretty well known for teaching peace, tolerance, equality and universal love. They were one of the first groups to outright condemn slavery in the United Sates, and also one of the first to take direct action against it (Quaker craftsmen, particularly shipbuilders, refused to make anything that would be used for the purpose of slavery, including those used for the slave trade; they also ran many of the stops on the underground railroad, and often provided material assistance to escaped blacks once in the North). They were also one of the first modern sects to allow female ministers, and have long supported and worked for equal rights for men and women.
They're also shockingly badass for radical pacifists, throughout their history they have maintained a reputation for being downright fearless when it comes to issues of faith vs. the powers that be. It took some serious stones to tell the king of England that you will not remove your hat in his presence because the only authority which you respect is the Lord, even more when the circumstances are such that the king is pissed you're not following the state religion in which he is the voice of God.
Re: (Score:2)
The label Quakers was a derogatory term given to the Society of Friends because of their habit of "quaking" during services.
The alternative meaning of the term is it originates from when George Fox was on trial and told the judge that he should "quake in fear of the Lord".
The judge retorted by calling him a Quaker and the name stuck. It may have been intended as derogatory but the Quakers don't really seem bothered by it.
Re: (Score:2)
And for the record do the "Quakers" preach anything bad/evil against their fellow man? Or even against you for making fun of them?
They did when they first started - many were tried for heresy because they thought the Church at the time was full of corruption and had let the ceremony get in the way of the basic belief system of honouring God. And they had no qualms whatsoever in telling Church leaders of this.
meh (Score:3)
Spirituality is about self improvement. Religion is about organization and power. Pretty simple really.
I did not alter Russell by adding [and Islam] or saying Religion, I quoted Russell in context. I read "and Islam" myself today, but quotation is quotation.
I'm confidant that Russell quote is particularly poignant because every so often people like you object, but they never mention Martin Luther King or Jimmy Carter.
Organization can obviously be used for good. Religion succeeds when Religion has been m
Kind of confused here (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this law, real or not, any different than thousands of other laws on the books in various states that aim to make something illegal by requiring that you register your 'group', business or service?
Anyone wanting to do something contrary to the morals of the standing legislators is likely to fall foul of one or more laws with the same miasmal qualities. For instance, look at sex laws; they are nothing but attempts to stop 'subversive' elements of local society, or at least make it so you can fine them if they do those 'subversive' things, and generally make them unwelcome in the community.
I say we should hang those that enact such laws if it were not so hypocritical ....
Re: (Score:2)
What worries me is that with all these "unconstitutional" laws still being on the books, all it will take is a few braindead SCOTUS rulings to dust them off and put them back in full force.
Re:Kind of confused here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Whats far more likely is a brain-dead local authority tries to dust them off and apply them and SCOTUS tosses them out. You and I may not always like the outcome of SCOTUS decisions but they do tend to serve the Framers' intent of keeping legislators and their more ridiculous laws in check.
Yeah, like, maybe 200 years ago. Certainly not in this century or the last have they done much of keeping things in check. Things like the changes to eminent domain that they magically puffed into existence, because we all know taking land and giving it to business interests is for "the public good."
Or how about that case of the farmer who did not want to comply with legislation that regulated what amount of wheat he could grow? That law was billed as being supported under "interstate commerce," and then a
Re: (Score:2)
Businessess - regardless of their size - should not be able to donation to politicians. Only individual persons should be able to.
Now what am I going to do? (Score:5, Funny)
What's the point of being subversive if it's not forbidden?
Re:Now what am I going to do? (Score:5, Funny)
Well if it makes you feel better, and you aren't too picky, I forbid you from being subversive.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Please, Sir, forbid me as well, please.
Re:Now what am I going to do? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes! He'll forbid all of us!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is not the only example of such (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is not the only example of such (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, you don't have to wait for a particularly repressive official to get persecuted by such laws. You just have to be somebody with no political clout.
Classic case: not so long go, most states had laws against "sodomy" — basically, oral or anal sex. Theoretically, this law applied to everybody, but in practice it only got applied to gays. (Well, also rapists, but there it was just used to add counts to the existing charge.) Eventually, most states repealed these laws, but even the liberal Warren court refused to find this hypocrisy unconstitutional. Curiously enough, the remaining anti-sodomy laws were finally thrown out by the hyper-conservative Roberts court. That probably says a lot about the change in attitude towards homosexuality during that time period.
Re:This is not the only example of such (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, it was the Renquist Court. I got my times wrong. But I think you'll agree that the court under Renquist wasn't a lot more liberal than it is now.
Re: (Score:2)
Gay sex still banned, sort of (Score:4, Interesting)
Lawrence v. Texas (2003) threw out laws that banned private sex acts between consenting adults.
Even after 2003, there is still anti-gay discrimination when it came to consenting acts between teenagers compared to the same acts between consenting heterosexual couples:
1) I think some states still have laws on the books that make gay sex a felony, those laws are theoretically enforceable against a 17-year-old gay couple.
2) Likewise, in states where there is no Romeo and Juliet law, straight couples can have sex all they want if they get married first. Gay couples, well, good luck getting a marriage license outside of a handful of states. Even when the laws are non-discriminatory, the application can be - some prosecutors may look the other way when an 18 year old man has sex with a 17 year old almost-woman, but they'll be happy to throw the book at an 18-year-old man with a 17-year-old male youth. Or the prosecutor may not be biased but the parents of the girl may be willing to not press charges but the homophobic parents of the 17 year old boy may insist on it.
Re: (Score:2)
On point 1, there's nothing theoretical about it. A few years ago, I was watching one of those MTV reality shows. One of the characters was a gay college-aged guy from Massachusetts — yes, the first state to issue same-sex marriage licenses. When he was in high school, he'd asked another guy to the prom. When his date's parents found out, they tried to bring criminal charges against him. They were able to get a hearing, because he was past the age of consent (16 in that state) and his 15-year-old date
Should go in the other direction. (Score:4, Insightful)
The government should just stop recognizing marriage.
(the big downside there would likely be companies that stopped extending health benefits to families of employees. I can't think of any other real big ones (most other stuff can easily be handled with contracts))
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And then inheritance and child custody issues go all to hell.
Government has a Supreme Court-recognized interest in promoting the family. They are always -- always -- delicate in how they word that, and they always address the balance between personal rights and improving society. They have in a number of cases taken away government's power to regulate family life -- interracial marriages, adoption/child custody by gays, use of birth control -- and I expect that in the near future they will remove the powe
Re: (Score:2)
You can't outright get rid of marriage. You have to replace them with something, i.e. civil unions.
That should solve the matter once and for all.
Re: (Score:2)
What if you're a 14 year old who has sex, both you and partner must kill themselves?
No, I'm not American.
Re: (Score:2)
12 is a little low, and frankly a little creepy. 14 is a little creepy too, when you think that it means a 40-year old could legally have sex with a 14-year old. And I say that as a card-carrying feminist.... The age of conesnt in most jurisdictions is 16, and that's about right, IMO.
The thing to keep in mind is that there's a lot of emotional and mental maturity needed to be able to make an informed consent about sex. Frankly a 14-year old just doesn't know enough about life to know what he or she is getti
I'm not a Commie! Cross My Heart! (Score:5, Interesting)
Westlaw says that the cited statute dates back to 1951, when a lot of anti-Communist statutes were being enacted nationwide.
When I went to college in the 70s, I had a number of jobs at the same state U I was attending. All University employees, including me, were required to sign an oath that they were "not a member of the Communist Party or any other organization which advocates the overthrow of the Government by force or violence". Naturally, I had to wonder what kind of namby-pamby insurrectionists Moscow was infiltrating our way, if they were willing to violently overthrow the government, but not lie about their willingness to do so!
This is not quite a dead issue. Quite recently, a Quaker hired to teach remedial math at Cal State East Bay lost her job after somebody noticed that she'd amended the mandatory oath she'd signed when she was hired. (The oath requires the signer to "support and defend" the California and U.S,. constitutions; not wanting to violate her religious principles, she'd inserted the word "nonviolently".) She was eventually rehired after the usual legal squabble, which ended with the state AG ruling that the unamended oath did not obligated the signer to do military service!
Re:I'm not a Commie! Cross My Heart! (Score:5, Funny)
(The oath requires the signer to "support and defend" the California and U.S,. constitutions; not wanting to violate her religious principles, she'd inserted the word "nonviolently".) She was eventually rehired after the usual legal squabble, which ended with the state AG ruling that the unamended oath did not obligated the signer to do military service!
Aw. I was hoping the issue was resolved when they balanced the score by hiring someone who amended the oath by inserting "exclusively through violence".
Re:I'm not a Commie! Cross My Heart! (Score:5, Funny)
They did. He's called the Governator.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The University I mentioned also still requires an oath. But it's not the same oath — the anti-Commie language I quoted is gone. I'd be surprised if yours did either.
Re:I'm not a Commie! Cross My Heart! (Score:5, Insightful)
(The oath requires the signer to "support and defend" the California and U.S,. constitutions;
If I had signed an oath like that I would be forced to attempt to overthrow those who claim to be the government, and reinstate a government that actually follows the constitution.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, you have somehow concluded the that requiring someone to "support and defend the constitution" as a condition of employment, is, itself, unconstitutional? Fascinating.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he's arguing that he has a constitutional obligation to overthrow a government he considers unconstitutional. I'm guessing he's a birther...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And I'm guessing that you have not read (or read and not understood) the Constitution if you think this current government is operating within the parameters.
Re: (Score:2)
not any more unconstitutional than things have been running for 100 years
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm not a Commie! Cross My Heart! (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm no defender of the Bush administration (particularly the second term), but I think you'd be hard pressed to show that Obama's has been a "lot less unconstitutional".
Obama's Nobel Prize money springs to mind, though it isn't quite germane to this discussion, as it is not strictly a constitutional issue. According to law, he has 60 days from receipt to dispose of the money - he can't keep it. Where is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Hardly. He's just claiming that current government violates the constitution(s), and that IF he had signed an oath to defend said constitution(s), he would then be obligated to attempt an overthrow. He isn't saying the constitution(s) obligate(s) him to do anything of the sort. Nor saying requiring such an oath as a condition of employment violates them.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:I'm not a Commie! Cross My Heart! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not quite a dead issue. Quite recently, a Quaker hired to teach remedial math at Cal State East Bay lost her job after somebody noticed that she'd amended the mandatory oath she'd signed when she was hired. (The oath requires the signer to "support and defend" the California and U.S,. constitutions; not wanting to violate her religious principles, she'd inserted the word "nonviolently".)
Personally I find the whole oath thing weird, here in Norway being a public school teacher is just a job not being an agent of the state. It binds you no more or less to uphold the constitution than it should for any other citizen, not that being a citizen is required either. And even for a citizen I find it weird, think of some of the amendments that have been repealed like Prohibition, what if you say "I don't support or defend Prohibition, it is wrong and should be removed"? Such oaths should not infringe on your first amendment rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, I find that pretty disturbing. There have been plenty of things added and repealed from constitutions over the years. There's no reason to think the the documents currently align with, and will always align with the signee's morals.
If forced to sign something like that for a job, I'd modify it too. Probably by inserting inserting the words "a copy of" befor
Re:I'm not a Commie! Cross My Heart! (Score:4, Interesting)
Back when I had a security clearance in the 80s, they also asked if you had any family members who were part of organizations advocating the overthrow of the U.S. One guy had marked "yes" - his explanation was that his great-grandfather had fought for the Confederacy during the War Between The States. They let him in anyway...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Too cute. And you know, it represents a kind of doublethink. It's OK to support a rebellion that would have destroyed the nation and maintained the enslavement of a huge population. After all, it was just a bunch of good old boys.
Now if I had to get a security clearance, I suppose I'd have to mention that my grandmother was a Ukrainian anarchist. I never met the lady, and I doubt if I share any of her political views, but somehow I suspect it would be more of an issue than this CSA guy.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with the Lincoln bit. But my granny is as dead as any Johnny Reb.
And there is an element of doublethink here. Lots of homegrown nastiness gets a pass just because it's homegrown. Part of this whole "tea party" thing is a resurgence of the militia movement, which advocates "armed resistance" to what they view as unconstitutional government. And many militia people believe that states have a constitutional right to secede, just like the southern states tried to.
This tolerant attitude even extends to a
Re: (Score:2)
Tax evasion may not be as bad as what Capone should have gone to jail for, but it's still pretty serious. I can't think of any serious penalty for disloyally signing a loyalty oath, beyond losing your job. I doubt that it's even against the law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is amusing how often this is held up as a triumph for law enforcement. Its pretty pathetic, if you ask me, that they would put "punishing the guy that we know is bad, but can't prove up to the standards of our legal system" above all else. Isn't that just, kind of a cop out?
If you never would have bothered him, gotten into his business, and prosecuted his tax evasion except that you believe he is guilty of some other crime completely, that you can't prove, then isn't he, in fact, being punished for a cri
In a related development... (Score:5, Funny)
definition of a subversive (Score:3, Insightful)
Prosecutor: Tell the court why you think he is a traitor to this country.
Miss America: I think Mr. Mellish (Woody Allen's character) is a traitor to this country because his views are different from the views of the president and others of his kind. Differences of opinion should be tolerated, but not when they're too different. Then he becomes a subversive mother.
- "Bananas" (1971)
Maryland had something called the "Ober law" (Score:2, Informative)
It was a similar kind of law passed back then. I don't know if it was repealed or is just being ignored because it was declared unconstitutional. Someone named Ober had pushed it.
There were a lot of these laws passed during the time Senator Joseph McCarthy was conducting his witch hunts ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H investigations. There was also something at the time called the House Un-American Activities Committee that did similar things (often involving guilt by vague association) . Then came the famous Ar
Re:Maryland had something called the "Ober law" (Score:4, Insightful)
While McCarthy's investigations were quite vile and unconsitutional, they were not witch hunts. A witch hunt implies looking for something that's not there. Oddly enough, most of the evidence that came out after the fact confirmed a great deal of those he investigated to in fact be communists.
Re: (Score:2)
You're thinking of a snipe hunt.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Mod parent down! We don't allow reality here!!!!
Re:Maryland had something called the "Ober law" (Score:5, Insightful)
You are playing a definition game. McCarthy wasn't simply looking for Communists, he was looking for a threat to the American way of life. Oddly enough, it wasn't there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"You are playing a definition game. McCarthy wasn't simply looking for Communists, he was looking for a threat to the American way of life. Oddly enough, it wasn't there."
Actually, yes it was. It just wasn't where he was looking.
McCarthy was an opportunist who destroyed a lot of lives while running a witch hunt for communists - more or less taking what the FBI was doing and running rampant with it. And, up until the mid-1990s, the history books didn't have the information the FBI did from the NSA. So, ac
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, that's the thing - as Venona indicates, they didn't go undetected. In fact, a lot of spies were caught because of Venona. The Rosenbergs, for example. And, some Soviet activities had a definite impact on sabotaging U.S. foreign policy - as I recall, one of the reasons China was able to go communist was that either the U.S. Treasury or State department had a high-level Soviet spy who made certain that funds earmarked for supporting Chiang Kai-Shek never arrived, allowing Mao Zedong to succeed.
When y
Re: (Score:2)
McCarthy wasn't simply looking for Communists, he was looking for a threat to the American way of life. Oddly enough, it wasn't there.
Oh, yes, it was - just a little closer than Sen. McCarthy was willing to believe.
problem is not that they were communists or not (Score:2, Insightful)
the problem is that you would be outed, ostracized and otherwise derided
you defeat communism because it is ideologically inferior. you don't defeat communism with thuggery. let communists speak openly and without fear of reprisals with their views. and let them fall and fail on the incoherence of their flawed ideology
unfortunately, we see the same braying thuggery "socialism! socialism! bark! bark!" today as in the mccarthy era. as if socialism is anything but medicare, the interstate highway system etc.: t
Re:problem is not that they were communists or not (Score:4, Insightful)
so why the hell do so many americans defy universal healthcare?
It's the irrational fear that somebody somewhere is getting something that they didn't earn or deserve.
Re:problem is not that they were communists or not (Score:5, Funny)
It's the irrational fear that somebody somewhere is getting something that they didn't earn or deserve.
No, we weren't talking about gitmo ...
and the arguments against that are obvious: (Score:2)
the moral argument: if someone is lazy, they don't deserve a wii or an iphone. and they won't get one. but that doesn't mean they deserve to die early of easily treatable diabetes for example
the investment argument: when you invest in the health of your community, it pays dividends to you in terms of: your own kids not getting diseases from sickly other people, your coworkers showing up and working instead of out on disability, the breadwinner actually able to work, so his kids don't wind up trying to burgl
Re:problem is not that they were communists or not (Score:5, Insightful)
so why the hell do so many americans defy universal healthcare?
It's the irrational fear that somebody somewhere is getting something that they didn't earn or deserve.
Everyone I've talked to who opposes universal healthcare believes the government, by increasing restrictions and tightening regulations, will make the situation worse rather than better, being an often poorly run government.
Not everyone who doesn't think as you do is an idiot. There's no need to attack and marginalize people who disagree with you. Hopefully that's not the kind of person you want to be, and you'll re-examine your perceptions in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
My opinion is that the Federal Government can't do it efficiently, at least not with what they've been proposing to this point. There are much easier ways to improve the current system that should be taken before socializing health care.
Re:problem is not that they were communists or not (Score:4, Insightful)
Your assumptions and arguments conveniently ignore the U.S. Constitution. You referred to "Americans" in a collective sense, so I'll assume you're talking about the Federal government.
"...a transparent government whose mandate is to keep you alive?"
We haven't had anything close to a "trasparent" government at the federal level in recent history. Furthermore, the government's madate is NOT to "keep us alive" or "keep us safe". Their mandate is to preserve our individual liberty and carry out a very limited and specifically defined set of functions. Providing healthcare is not one of those functions.
"...why the hell do so many americans defy universal healthcare?"
1. It's un-Constitutional (i.e. illegal)
2. The government can't even be trusted with their existing powers. Why do so many Americans want to give them even more?
3. The government's biggest welfare programs are all insolvent. They've clearly demonstrated their unwillingness and/or inability to actually manage welfare programs.
"socialized universal healthcare is not perfect, its simply BETTER than the current retarded system we have. admit it, and lose your ignorant fear of the scary word "socialism".
See #2 above. I'm sure that you're a well-meaning individual, but what you get out of Washingon D.C. is legislation with a nice cover sheet that reads "Healthcare Reform" placed on top of 2000 pages of corporate welfare, tax increases, and expansion of government power. Do you actually believe these people are going to pass a bill that threatens insurance and pharmaceutical company profits?
"...all they do is wind up killing some of their neighbors and friends, the same as they do when they oppose universal healthcare."
Now you're being as irrational as the people who suggest that the government wants to give grandma a lethal injection.
"...same as the mccarthy era- its not based on logic and reason, but based on fear of the unknown."
There is some opposition to government run healthcare that may be due to fear of the unknown, but there are very logical and reasonable arguments for opposing it. Fear of the "S-word" is a fortunate counter-balance to the blind acceptance of the empty promise that government is going to provide free universal healthcare. A promise that they have no intention or ability to fulfill.
Re: (Score:2)
What part of even the most government-run health care isn't covered by the "general welfare" clause of the US Constitution? You may not like its existence, but it puts general welfare on a par with defense (they're parallel clauses in the text).
Why do you think the United States is uniquely inept? Pretty much every other developed country has a health care system at least as good as ours (measured by public health numbers), often better, and spends a lot less per capita. When I grew up, the general at
Re:Maryland had something called the "Ober law" (Score:5, Insightful)
The witch hunt analogy is very appropriate. In Salem, etc. they persecuted witches (or anyone who wasn't Bible thumpin protestant or they just didn't like). Didn't matter if the witches/communists were actually bad people doing bad things. The possibility that you might be a communist/witch was enough to get you or your career burned at the stake depending on the century. So yes, McCarthy was on a witch hunt. The morality and wisdom of such a hunt is left as an exercise for the reader.
Re: (Score:2)
In other word, Arthur Miller got his message across.
Re:Maryland had something called the "Ober law" (Score:4, Insightful)
The defendant gives money to the poor and obeys the ten commandments - he must be a filthy commie!
When you expand the definition of Communist to anyone you can harrass if it gets you closer to the White House as McCarthy did then that is a lot of people. He was nothing but an opportunistic scumbag that would have got furthur if he hadn't decided to pretend that the US armed forces from General Marshall down were Communists.
hurrah for local government! (Score:2)
Those damned activist judges on the Supreme Court, always working against individual liberties! What we need is more state governm...
Oh, wait.
Ahhh... so it's an old law (Score:2)
The law is full of cruft like this. It's literally dead code. Legislators, by necessity, cannot simply cut code from "the program". They actually have to vote on all the changes. As frustrating as programming can be, can you imagine how it would be if you literally had to have a vote on every commit to the repository?
I used to work in a shop where we printed law books. I got to inspect the printing plates and sometimes had time to read them. My favorite was the law from some mid-western state that put
Re: (Score:2)
I note that they trap them, not shoot them.
With the price of ammunition these day, $1.50 per head - or per paw, as the case may be - wouldn't even cover your expenses.