×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FBI Wiretapped Hemingway

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the rights-and-writers dept.

Books 254

Hugh Pickens writes "On the fiftieth anniversary of the death by suicide of author Ernest Hemingway, his friend and biographer A. E. Hotchner writes in the NY Times that the man who 'had stood his ground against charging water buffaloes, who had flown missions over Germany, who had refused to accept the prevailing style of writing but, enduring rejection and poverty, had insisted on writing in his own unique way, this man, my deepest friend, was afraid — afraid that the FBI was after him, that his body was disintegrating, that his friends had turned on him, that living was no longer an option.' In the midst of depression and under treatment at St. Mary's Hospital in Rochester, Minnesota, Hemingway was convinced that his room was bugged, his phone was tapped, and suspected that one of the interns was a fed. Decades later, in response to a Freedom of Information petition, the FBI released its Hemingway file. It revealed that beginning in the 1940s J. Edgar Hoover had placed Hemingway under surveillance because he was suspicious of Ernest's activities in Cuba. The surveillance continued all through his confinement at St. Mary's Hospital, making it likely that the phone outside his room was tapped after all. 'In the years since, I have tried to reconcile Ernest's fear of the FBI, which I regretfully misjudged, with the reality of the FBI file,' writes Hotchner, author of Papa Hemingway and Hemingway and His World. 'I now believe he truly sensed the surveillance, and that it substantially contributed to his anguish and his suicide.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

254 comments

Unfortunately... (-1)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643506)

...assholes like LulzSec are going to bring this shit to everyone. Thanks for starting the new Red Scare

Re:Unfortunately... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643528)

It's not lulzsec's fault, even if they are incompetent, misinformed and illiterate fools.

Re:Unfortunately... (1, Insightful)

Yosho-sama (800703) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643618)

It's not lulzsec's fault, even if they are incompetent, misinformed and illiterate fools.

And yet, they keep breaking into the private and customer information for banks, global corporations, governments, etc. etc.!

I'm awfully grateful for lulzsec revealing to the world that all it takes is a group of incompetent, misinformed and illiterate fools to cause billions of dollars worth of damage, destroy the credibility and security of world governments and established institutions and reveal the private information for millions of individuals.

I can't wait to see what competent, informed and literate fools with government backing can do to countries and companies when they decide that destroying a country's economy is more effective then paying billions of dollars to blow shit up.

Re:Unfortunately... (3, Insightful)

Lord Juan (1280214) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643666)

I'm very grateful for lulzsec revealing to the world that all it takes is a group of greedy CEOs and corrupt government officials to cause billions of dollars worth of damage, destroy the credibility and security of world governments and established institutions and reveal the private information for millions of individuals.
 

FTFY

Re:Unfortunately... (2, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643874)

*Sigh*

The government and CEOs didn't do those things. A bunch of sociopathic man-children did. The governments and CEOs should have had better security, but blaming them for the damage is like blaming a girl for getting raped while drunk at a party.

LulzSec isn't a group of working class heroes, no matter how much you may wish them to be. They're just thugs, hurting people for their own amusement. They'd do the same to you, if they thought it would be so much as a half-hearted chuckle to their friends' lips.

Re:Unfortunately... (2)

Yosho-sama (800703) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643926)

Seriously, I was about to write that I doubt highly that CEOs and corrupt government officials are the ones coding the firewalls and preventing SQL injections.

Re:Unfortunately... (5, Informative)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 2 years ago | (#36644228)

To compare LulzSec with rapists or thugs is rediculous; comparing the CEOs to victims is so outrageous it's almost funny. There are plenty of serious "cyber" criminals who are hacking into people's systems for real money and causing real damage to people like you and me; the consumers who have their data being stored by these corporates. What makes LulzSec different is that, instead of just putting some charges on your credit card and never telling anyone where they got the data they published what they did. That's just bringing to the surface an issue which was already happening before LulzSec got involved.

LulzSec caused public nuisiance and annoyance but that makes them more stupid teenage vandals than thugs. The main bad thing they have done is embarassing the powerful and pointing out publicly what data was already available to the real black hats. It's not just that the corporates should have had better security, it's that:

  • they had no right to be gathering the data they were gathering in the first place.
  • if their security doesn't improve, someone sometime soon will cause real damage to all of us
  • the CEOs have been lying about the level of their security; they have put their customers at risk

For now I think there's quite a bit more value in pursuing the CEOs than the

Re:Unfortunately... (1)

JohnRoss1968 (574825) | more than 2 years ago | (#36644102)

"I'm awfully grateful for lulzsec revealing to the world that all it takes is a group of incompetent, misinformed and illiterate fools to cause billions of dollars worth of damage, destroy the credibility and security of world governments and established institutions and reveal the private information for millions of individuals."

Most Governments dont need LULSEC to destroy their credibility....Most Government's credibility are already crap. Including and maybe even especially our own.

The US Government The Best Government Money Can Buy!

Re:Unfortunately... (4, Insightful)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#36644122)

This is the kind of mindset that fear mongers capitalize on. Hoover had the Red Scare to keep in power. This terrorist stuff is a fear mongers wet dream. Interesting how we have so many ways to keep people "informed", aka in fear. This kind of reptile brained actions are too global in reach. We haven't evolved out of it and we don't look like we will until we destroy ourselves or nature does it for us. Serioiusly, we are wasting time and resources we should be spending on space. Let's try to be ready to avoid a planet destroying event instead of fighting each other? How many asteroids need to wiz by our planet before we realize we need to tend to them?

Re:Unfortunately... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643564)

I'll refrain from calling you names, as you've characterized LutzSed, but just point out the fact that it the FBI that's the problem. They've been violating the rights of Americans, and spying on us all, for their own reasons, not because they were trying to protect us, since they were formed. There's no hope of curtailing their activities, especially now that we have the big Radical Muslem scare, and a congress full of right wing reactionaries and cowards.

LutzSec isn't bringing on anything, it's already here.

Re:Unfortunately... (3, Insightful)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643600)

Q: What do you call it when the government, rather than protecting the people, sets out to protect itself from the people?

Re:Unfortunately... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643648)

A: The United States of America.

Re:Unfortunately... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643974)

A: The United States of America.

Ha. Funny. What the GP actually described is nearly every form of government ever invented by the hand of Man. That's the facts, jack. I mean, you wouldn't be claiming that the governments of oh, say, Russia or China don't take extreme steps to protect themselves from their own citizens. Would you now?

Re:Unfortunately... (4, Interesting)

tyrione (134248) | more than 2 years ago | (#36644098)

They have been given authority by several Congressional Laws throughout several decades. Stop thinking this is June 21, 1788 and we just ratified the US Constitution. Protections have been slowly disintegrating shortly after the last remnant of the Founding Fathers were in power and had pull to protect them. Stop voting in Evangelical Fundamentalists and you'll see how much push back Congress will actually do to keep a checks n' balance with the FBI. Stop sitting around ignoring all the Militia nut jobs around and take them more seriously because the FBI certainly does and must to keep even your ass from being threatened. The blade cuts both ways.

Re:Unfortunately... (4, Informative)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643566)

Not to worry. The hope and change we voted for will be here any moment to take us to Candy Mountain.

Re:Unfortunately... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643668)

Goodbye United States!
Yeah, goodbye United States!

Re:Unfortunately... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643570)

You stupid fucking idiot. It's people like you who are responsible for all the deaths caused by USA. Just die.

Re:Unfortunately... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643582)

Yeah, LulzSec is why Hemmingway was wiretapped.

DAMN YOU SCRIPT KIDDIES! DAMN YOU!

fool ..... (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#36644014)

Edgar J Whoore didnt need a lulzsec to bring him upon usa as a plague like he was. he came about himself.

Jimmy Dean (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643512)

Like JD, he lived and died on his own terms. Fuck everyone that hasn't read Hemingway.

Re:Jimmy Dean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643964)

Like JD, he lived and died on his own terms. Fuck everyone that hasn't read Hemingway.

What, drunk? The man passed out in the middle of a speech!

But they only snoop on terrorists (4, Interesting)

rbrander (73222) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643532)

The immunity to telecoms that accepted requests to wiretap without warrants, the revenge taken on Qwest for not doing so, the new rules that pretty much allow warrantless wiretapping at will...those powers would never be abused by today's FBI. They are all staunch and true. There's no chance of this happening now. No way are they going to snoop on friends-of-relatives-of suspected possible terrorists. Zero chance that people who impress a girlfriend by going to a march to support that Gaza blockade ship (which helps Gaza, which helps Hamas, who are terrorists, who no-doubt support other terrorists that might attack us some day) will find themselves on a list.

Don't be paranoid. We don't need a government of laws when we have a government of such good men who only want to protect us.

From terrorists.

And communists.

Re:But they only snoop on terrorists (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643658)

"And communists"

lol. You do know what year it is, right? That's not a 1950's typewriter you're sitting at, it's 2011. "communists"...lol. Don't be a retard. Put down the Keystone and clean up the jizz off the wall of your trailer, step outside and enter the real world. Idiot.

If that's too much for you, work for Michelle Bachmann.

Re:But they only snoop on terrorists (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643782)

Does that constant "whoooooshing" noise over your head ever bother you?

Re:But they only snoop on terrorists (2, Insightful)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643786)

I think you missed his point that terrorists are the new communists.

Re:But they only snoop on terrorists (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643806)

The last time I checked, if you were applying for permanent residency in the US, the questionnaire had a line that asks,

"Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?"

I haven't seen it recently, but I'm thinking it is about time for them to replace this with,

"Are you, or have you ever been or supported, a member of a terrorist organization?"

Re:But they only snoop on terrorists (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#36644030)

"Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?"

Given the number of people who have successfully immigrated to USA after the collapse of the Soviet Union, I doubt that this question was actually looked at in the last few decades.

Re:But they only snoop on terrorists (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#36644126)

I always figured they let people in, but stuck them on a watch list based on the answer, and used their result to deport people who provably lied about it.

Re:But they only snoop on terrorists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643826)

Of course. The government doesn't try to rid America of Communists anymore, all the Communists RUN the government, now. . . .. commrade.

Re:But they only snoop on terrorists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643840)

Did you really take what he said at face value and totally miss the point of the "communists" reference, or are you just trolling?

Re:But they only snoop on terrorists (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643722)

Really, this got modded up? I thought /.ers were all Libertarians who didn't trust the government with a popsicle in the winter. Not a bunch of Bush-voters who thought abuse of government power was out of the question and warrant-less wiretapping was A-OK.

"we have a government of such good men who only want to protect us"

oh wow....get a grip.

Re:But they only snoop on terrorists (2)

tycoex (1832784) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643770)

You're retarded. This is the most obvious case of sarcasm in the written word I've ever witnessed.

The same goes for the AC above you.

Re:But they only snoop on terrorists (2)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643970)

those powers would never be abused by today's FBI.

That may be true. But laws aren't here to protect us against current threats, they are here to protect us against future threats as well. Although today's FBI may be sincere, someday we will have another Hoover in power, which is why we need proper judicial oversight of these people.

I have not heard of any wiretapping abuses by the FBI recently. But eventually there will be if they don't have oversight. That is an absolute guarantee.

Re:But they only snoop on terrorists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36644058)

whoosh

Re:But they only snoop on terrorists (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#36644066)

Given that the Office of The Inspector General, not exactly a noted hotbed of antigovernment radicals or clinical paranoids, fairly recently concluded [justice.gov] that the FBI's use of 'National Security Letters', 'Exigent Letters', and similar spook stuff was in flagrant violation even of their own extremely broad discretion and weak internal policies, I'm going to say that you haven't heard because the FBI does their best to be quiet, and nobody really cares that much...

Re:But they only snoop on terrorists (3, Insightful)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 2 years ago | (#36644080)

Your sarasm-meter is overdue for its 100,000-mile checkup.

Re:But they only snoop on terrorists (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#36644190)

Although today's FBI may be sincere...

:-)

I have not heard of any wiretapping abuses by the FBI recently.

I guess that means it doesn't happen, right? I mean, our innocent little lambs would never destroy evidence [foxnews.com] now, would they? Of course nothing will come of it. You're not to be taken seriously..

Authority should come at a very high price.. They should have to prove they're not violating the rules they impose on us.. Consider them guilty until proven innocent to keep them in line

All this makes the tin hatters look a bit less crazy..

God save the Queen!

Re:But they only snoop on terrorists (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#36644278)

I guess that means it doesn't happen, right?

I don't know. It may be 50 years before we know, in fact.

They should have to prove they're not violating the rules they impose on us

What? No, police better not be imposing rules, they are not the ones in charge of that. They are merely enforcers, who need to ask for permission from the judicial branch.

All this makes the tin hatters look a bit less crazy

Although it seems you lack understanding of separation of powers, and the checks and balances placed in the constitution.

God save the Queen!

If you're British, that might explain it.

countertrolling & the trolltalk.com crew (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36644430)

Cheat the moderation system - here's where countertrolling explains what he's doing while he trolls others (to his fellow trolltalk.com friends) to downmod them via his registered account, logout, & ac stalk, harass, and troll them:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2245866&cid=36491652 [slashdot.org]

Here's where countertrolling's "troll mechanics" for downmodding others is explained in detail by someone that got sick of it happening:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2271908&cid=36579618 [slashdot.org]

As far as bogus up moderations, the trolltalk.com bunch (tomhudson, countertrolling, & others) collectively "team up" to upmod one another, in teams, as favors to one another.

(Talk about low, and bogus!)

---

In fact, here's what he says about it, why he does it, and to all of us here:

"What the skiddies here don't understand is that I don't give a shit about dumbass 'karma' on the internet.. I'm here for the jollies with nothing to lose or fight for.. watching them destroy their world.. They can go absolutely nuts as far as I'm concerned.. It's nothing but pure entertainment (and data points) for me and mine... Tragicomedy is probably the best word I can think of to describe it" - by countertrolling (1585477) on Thursday June 30, @10:26AM (#36622502) Journal

QUOTED VERBATIM FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2281808&cid=36622502 [slashdot.org]

Sounds like a sick individual to me.

Re:But they only snoop on terrorists (1)

Lesrahpem (687242) | more than 2 years ago | (#36644368)

.....I think your sarcasm detector needs checked for defects and malfunctions.

Just because you're paranoid (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643534)

Doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

punctuation! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643548)

What's with all the commas in the summary? One freaking long sentence!

Re:punctuation! (1, Informative)

petteyg359 (1847514) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643590)

In addition to all the properly placed commas, there are several periods. As such, it is not "one freaking long sentence".

Re:punctuation! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643592)

Stage a protest...

Re:punctuation! (2)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643624)

[Hemingway] 'had stood his ground against charging water buffaloes, who had flown missions over Germany, who had refused to accept the prevailing style of writing but, enduring rejection and poverty, had insisted on writing in his own unique way, this man, my deepest friend, was afraid — afraid that the FBI was after him, that his body was disintegrating, that his friends had turned on him, that living was no longer an option.'

Most of Hemingway's paragraphs didn't contain that many different thoughts.

Re:punctuation! (3, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643984)

[Hemingway] 'had stood his ground against charging water buffaloes, who had flown missions over Germany, who had refused to accept the prevailing style of writing but, enduring rejection and poverty, had insisted on writing in his own unique way, this man, my deepest friend, was afraid — afraid that the FBI was after him, that his body was disintegrating, that his friends had turned on him, that living was no longer an option.'

Most of Hemingway's paragraphs didn't contain that many different thoughts.

That's because Hemingway actually knew how to write.

One thing worth pointing out (4, Interesting)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643576)

Worth pointing out is that there is a competing school of thought, which regards his suicide as likely having been an accident.

Re:One thing worth pointing out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643616)

Yeah, he didn't mean to kill himself for real, it was just a joke gone wrong, right?

Re:One thing worth pointing out (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 2 years ago | (#36644038)

Yeah, he didn't mean to kill himself for real, it was just a joke gone wrong, right?

No, the CIA got the wrong guy.

Re:One thing worth pointing out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643876)

You mean a âoemake it look like an" accident.

At least it goes to prove that (5, Insightful)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643584)

you're not paranoid if they're really out to get you.

Re:At least it goes to prove that (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643990)

you're not paranoid if they're really out to get you.

No, you can still be paranoid even then, if it's unreasonable to believe that they're out to get you. Of course, they can still get you.

Even paranoiacs have enemies. (3, Insightful)

La Gris (531858) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643596)

The fact that he was wiretapped does not exclude he may have been a paranoiac.

Re:Even paranoiacs have enemies. (5, Interesting)

drougie (36782) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643700)

He was bipolar, with paranoid delusions most amplified during mixed episodes (happy and not happy psychosis in the same package -- a bad trip).

And you're right, that he was a manic depressive with persecutory delusions and that he was indeed being spied upon by law enforcement doesn't mean he wasn't nuts -- obviously the case in Hemingway's case. Maybe it was self-fulfilling.

An advantage our communications are monitored? (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643606)

http://www.pdfernhout.net/on-dealing-with-social-hurricanes.html [pdfernhout.net]
"Our biggest advantage is that no one takes us seriously. :-)
        And our second biggest advantage is that our communications are monitored, which provides a channel by which we can turn enemies into friends. :-)
        And our third biggest advantage is we have no assets, and so are not a profitable target and have nothing serious to fight over amongst ourselves. :-)"
        Let's hope those advantages all hold true for a long time. :-) "

Re:An advantage our communications are monitored? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36644184)

Surveillance is fine until the observers attain faith in the fidelity of their coverage. At that point the absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence, and the observed gain as much manipulative power as the observers.

Monitoring that results in something more akin to field journal entries, information designed to orient rather than sufficiently inform, is much more effective for large entities determined to monitor large populations over indefinite time periods. Not least of the benefits is the implicit priority being removed from consumption of data (due to deliberately insufficient scope), and reassigned to the demonstrable fidelity of the ensuing analysis. This safeguard ensures a focus on multiplicity of channels and demonstration of vision by the human assets manning the process. Handing anyone as-of-now dossier should be reserved for assets expected to be decommissioned in the near future or expected to serve at higher officer levels as the long-term exposure to this level of data preprocessing will render a unit non-functional beyond systemic boundaries.

Satisfaction of acquisition must be delayed delayed to a point beyond the consultation of empowered observers, potentially resulting in a less volatile, more formal process for all involved.

Moving the boundary of satisfaction that actionable information has been received can only go so far, though. Success for the observers must be adjudged prior to the deliverance of judgment from the Judicial System. Without this threshold, it becomes nearly impossible to ascertain actual effectiveness of the surveillance system, and totally impossible to convince non-privvy parties of the integrity of the system.

Following on the above, reformation of a surveillance system cannot be achieved if the observers are empowered to adjust process in response to their own false-positives. This power of reformation must be moderated via the Judicial System and subject to formalized public review. It should, in collective hind-sight follow a clearly delineated evolution through the acquisition of permission to engage a subject, to the analysis and resulting referrals, the resulting actions, and then the official post-mortem in the form of public legal process. Literally, no change should be allowed, especially to a bad system, without all external bodies attendant.

Disappointingly, excessive monitoring impedes 'Spell My Name With An S' style manipulation, while enabling much more blatant 'Sunday Catholic' style bypassing of safeguards. This eliminates a lot of the fun people can have with cumbersome security apparatus manned by predictable (read: reliably indoctrinated) personnel, while increasing the potential for development of institutionalized habits derived from incomplete models. Literally, the more clearly defined the threat/evidence/response cycle, the simple it becomes for an informed party to manipulate the system up to and including utilizing the security apparatus in the design of an attack upon the apparatus itself.

Additionally, once a sufficient number of people are elevated to personality analysis it will become useless to tell the truth about anything where your perception of 'truth' does not flow directly from the accepted canon. The whole point in drawing attention to oneself with intentional deviance is to illustrate to the observers the behavioral fidelity surrounding the oddity. Sufficiently granular monitoring will move this class of misdirection into the heap with latency based games like the Bishop's Gambit. As it is now, you have distinct incentive to tell the truth occasionally when dealing with individuals representing intelligence organizations. With pervasive monitoring this incentive disappears completely; it is assumed the data your human contact is evaluating will receive direct treatment from an undisclosed party with differentials calculated from systemic means, not contextual interpretation from a qualified individual... rendering the human contact beneath even contempt - roughly the equivalent of a meat-puppet - and certainly not to be considered anything but expendable by those not wishing to lve their entire life with guilt for dead slaves.

I don't know who in their right mind would want to spend their lives enforcing an end to all the fun that honed our strategies this far. Our own 'guardians' will either morph into crumpled jelly-donuts or self-loathing defeatists. What is there to do once everyone agrees to go with only evidence that can be gathered by physical means between the birth and death of the subject as interpreted by differentials from imperfectly expressed patterns? This system completely overlooks strategies employed by selfless or strongly religious individuals, as well as latency based or relativistic attacks designed to augment legitimate civilian discontent when and where it arises.

Anyhow, figured I would rant a bit since you are being so sweetly succinct, Paul ;)

Regards.

Would not happen anymore! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643614)

Too bad for him! Were he lived today he wouldn't have suffered paranoia of being wiretapped as everyone is wiretapped. Good for us living today!

Re:Would not happen anymore! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643834)

Yeah, it seems cultural mores and standards change in time units of about one generation. People over age 40 don't change their basic beliefs, people 25-40 adapt themselves some, kids welcome change and are bringing it. I think back 15 years when I would have unsolicited conversations with people mad as hell over Clinton's new "gays in the military" policy. Today most people are just fine with that policy, or else think it's unfair to gay servicemen. Another example is the saying that "science advances funeral by funeral", referring to the many great scientists who made their mark in their 20's and 30's, but later in life threw their weight against new theories.

slashdot asshattery (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643634)

1) Complain about the grammar of the summary.
2) Complain about kdawson.
3) Give a metaphor about Rob Malda's penis size.
4) Do some pro-corporate astroturfing.
5) Mention LulzSec.
6) Question Jon Katz' sexual preference.
7) Blame Microsoft.
8) Blame Google.
9) Blame Oracle.
10) Blame Sun.
11) Use ALL CAPS. IT'S LIKE YELLING.
12) Fuck you, Taco.

Re:slashdot asshattery (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643796)

No "posting as anon because I know I'd get modded down for this" complaint? You must be new here.

(posting as anon because I'll get modded down for being an uninformed dick)

Re:slashdot asshattery (2)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643878)

6) Question Jon Katz' sexual preference.

Christ, that's a blast from the past (assuming the reason I don't see his articles anymore is because he isn't contributing them, rather than just because I'm blocking them).

i generally laugh at conspiracy theorists (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643640)

but, when the conspiracy is shown to be real, i have nothing but venom and hate for the power abusing assholes who think they can get away with it

hoover was a cross-dressing pinhead (not that there's anything wrong with cross-dressing, but there's plenty wrong with hypocrisy). the fbi under him was an extension of mccarthy era hysteria and witch hunts. so fuck you hoover, thanks for contributing to the destruction of the composure of a great man and a great writer

those who seek to protect us, in the name of hypocritical assumptions about what we need protection from, are the real enemies of the usa

down with them all

Re:i generally laugh at conspiracy theorists (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643678)

God's just. "Judge not lest you be judged."

God says...
affection prevailed BOOK hope Dakota toiled hart country
mothers helped regardless cold flowers poetic apparently
travail fool pronouncing another souls complete dispraisest
affrighted South childish hands loving

Re:i generally laugh at conspiracy theorists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643702)

God is not real, so...

Re:i generally laugh at conspiracy theorists (2)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643732)

I too, generally laugh at conspiracy theories, however, when they involve J. Edgar Hoover spying on somebody/anybody, well, that's just common sense^Wknowledge.

Re:i generally laugh at conspiracy theorists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643768)

Yah see, Hoover was spying on Hemingway because he was living vicariously through him. Hemingway was a real man.

Hoover was a sissy government bureaucrat.

It's kind of like how some of us watch Bond movies - I'd never have the guts to be a spy like that but it's nice to watch a movie of someone doing that and pretending for 2 hours that I could be a super tough spy. Hoover just looked at a real man.

Re:i generally laugh at conspiracy theorists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643778)

conspiracy theorists can have real enemies too, you insensitive clod

Re:i generally laugh at conspiracy theorists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643802)

Maybe you could do a film about cross dressing zombies. That would be great.

Re:i generally laugh at conspiracy theorists (4, Funny)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643852)

so fuck you Hoover

You missed a perfect opportunity for a good pun by not opting for "dam(n) you Hoover" or even "Hoover sucks"

Re:i generally laugh at conspiracy theorists (1)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643880)

Given Hoover's extra-curricular pursuits, who's to say that wasn't a pun?

Re:i generally laugh at conspiracy theorists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643966)

whoosh!

Re:i generally laugh at conspiracy theorists (0)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 2 years ago | (#36644008)

so fuck you Hoover

You missed a perfect opportunity for a good pun by not opting for "dam(n) you Hoover" or even "Hoover sucks"

I think "Hoover blows" would be better.

Re:i generally laugh at conspiracy theorists (0)

Velex (120469) | more than 2 years ago | (#36644062)

hoover was a cross-dressing pinhead (not that there's anything wrong with cross-dressing

If there's nothing wrong with it, why are you using the term in that manner?

Re:i generally laugh at conspiracy theorists (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#36644076)

maybe if you finished reading the words you cut off mid sentence you would have your answer? sorry if that's a strange idea

Re:i generally laugh at conspiracy theorists (1, Troll)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 2 years ago | (#36644212)

> mccarthy era hysteria and witch hunts

You do know that the fifty year seal on the Senate records from the McCarthy hearings finally expired and that between that and the other reveals from the end of the Cold War we now know (Not believe, know. There is a difference.) that Joe McCarthy's only real sin was in failing to realize just how far the rabbit hole went. It wasn't just an infestation of Communists in the State Dept., the rot went all the way to the heart of our government, including the US Senate.

One can argue whether the FBI's tactics were effective, one can argue whether they were moral or legal. What can't be argued any more is that they were fighting a real enemy within and losing.

Go get _Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies_ by M. Stanton Evans and prepare for the scales to fall from your eyes. Backed by lots of actual documents from the era, now declassified by our government or released by Soviet archives.

Re:i generally laugh at conspiracy theorists (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#36644244)

down with them all

Leaving what?

countertrolling & the trolltalk.com crew (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36644440)

Cheat the moderation system - here's where countertrolling explains what he's doing while he trolls others (to his fellow trolltalk.com friends) to downmod them via his registered account, logout, & ac stalk, harass, and troll them:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2245866&cid=36491652 [slashdot.org]

Here's where countertrolling's "troll mechanics" for downmodding others is explained in detail by someone that got sick of it happening:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2271908&cid=36579618 [slashdot.org]

As far as bogus up moderations, the trolltalk.com bunch (tomhudson, countertrolling, & others) collectively "team up" to upmod one another, in teams, as favors to one another.

(Talk about low, and bogus!)

---

In fact, here's what he says about it, why he does it, and to all of us here:

"What the skiddies here don't understand is that I don't give a shit about dumbass 'karma' on the internet.. I'm here for the jollies with nothing to lose or fight for.. watching them destroy their world.. They can go absolutely nuts as far as I'm concerned.. It's nothing but pure entertainment (and data points) for me and mine... Tragicomedy is probably the best word I can think of to describe it" - by countertrolling (1585477) on Thursday June 30, @10:26AM (#36622502) Journal

QUOTED VERBATIM FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2281808&cid=36622502 [slashdot.org]

Sounds like a sick individual to me.

Obligatory Clue (2)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643760)

Mr. Green: Why is J. Edgar Hoover on your phone?
Wadsworth: He's on everybody else's! Why shouldn't he be on mine?

FBI = the American Gestapo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36643798)

I've dealt with these fuckers, and believe me, they are not about doing what is honest or
what is right. They are a tool of the government, and they have been used for plenty of
evil and will continue to be used in that manner. Just because that sick bastard J. Edgar
Hoover is gone, don't believe for one second that the FBI is suddenly kind and gentle,
because that would be very far off the mark.

Re:FBI = the American Gestapo (2)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 2 years ago | (#36644024)

I've dealt with these fuckers, and believe me, they are not about doing what is honest or what is right. They are a tool of the government, and they have been used for plenty of evil and will continue to be used in that manner. Just because that sick bastard J. Edgar Hoover is gone, don't believe for one second that the FBI is suddenly kind and gentle, because that would be very far off the mark.

They never were kind and gentle, nor do I particularly care if they're not. What I want them to do is follow the law.. Unfortunately for us, nowadays they generally are, and that's the problem. After Hoover, Congress reined in the FBI and put a lot of restrictions on their behavior. Most of those were removed (and new powers granted) in the wake of 9/11 by the ill-named Patriot Act and others like it. It's not the FBI you have to blame for this, but a power-hungry and fundamentally irrational Congress.

Just because you think there is a conspiracy (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643916)

...doesn't mean there isn't one. I am quite sure a large percentage of the paranoid notions out there are not true, but then there are the facts that surface much later that prove to have been true.

it's exactly this kinda crap that keeps the seeds of doubt sewn in my mind each and every time the government tells the people something.

Re:Just because you think there is a conspiracy (4, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 2 years ago | (#36644034)

...doesn't mean there isn't one. I am quite sure a large percentage of the paranoid notions out there are not true, but then there are the facts that surface much later that prove to have been true.

it's exactly this kinda crap that keeps the seeds of doubt sewn in my mind each and every time the government tells the people something.

Put it this way: every single time some government official, from the President of the United States on down says, "we need new power 'x' in order to make you safe from 'y'", We the People need to reply with a resounding "Prove it!" Make these bastards fight for every new power they try to assume. Sometimes they're right ... but I want to hear more than fear-mongering and manufactured statistics.

Albert Einstein, Helen Keller, Margaret Sanger, .. (5, Insightful)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 2 years ago | (#36643958)

With just a touch of exaggeration, I'll say that any public intellectual in that era who didn't have an FBI file probably was lacking a conscience. Einstein had a 1500-page FBI file [theeinsteinfile.com] , having aroused Hoover's suspicion with his involvement in "communist front" organizations like the American Crusade Against Lynching [wikipedia.org] . America had been through the worst era of unrestrained robber-baron capitalism, followed by the Great Depression. It was the height of Jim Crow. If you were engaged in the intellectual life of the country, it was very likely that you were either going to become a socialist or some other kind of radical. Just to pick two more random examples: Margaret Sanger [wikipedia.org] and Helen Keller [wikipedia.org] were both leftists, and both had FBI files. American leftists were the only ones who spoke up against Fascism in Spain and tried to do anything about it -- at a time when right-wingers were often huge fans of Mussolini. For a lot of folks on the left, the big disillusionment came in 1939 with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Re:Albert Einstein, Helen Keller, Margaret Sanger, (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#36644096)

This was also the era were the activities of the American clandestine agencies became so egregious that even congress took a look [aarclibrary.org] and grew something resembling teeth.

Ernest was a willing red spy since 1941 (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36644108)

Might make you depressed if you thought your were going to be exposed.
Might even convince you it was time to kill yourself.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/jul/09/hemingway-failed-kgb-spy

Re:Ernest was a willing red spy since 1941 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36644276)

"Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America (Yale University Press), which reveals the Nobel prize-winning novelist was for a while on the KGB's list of its agents in America. "

Oh.. look... a new book by a nobody that claims someone, who has been dead since half a decade, was this and that.

Time to update his Wikipedia page, eh? :D

Re:Ernest was a willing red spy since 1941 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36644310)

>Ernest was a willing red spy since 1941

Maybe, but he didn't work for the FBI and measured by the standards of the time that book was written thats a good thing.

What was your point again? ;D

Mussolini Fans (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36644192)

Russian communists were fans of Hitler (Adolf and Stalin secretly divided Poland) until the Germans attacked the Soviet Union in 1941.

Mussolini was a fan of (wait for it)... FDR.

“America has a dictator,” Benito Mussolini proclaimed, watching FDR from abroad. He marveled at how the forces of “spiritual renewal” on display in the New Deal were destroying the outdated notion that democracy and liberalism were “immortal principles.” “Roosevelt is moving, acting, giving orders independently of the decisions or wishes of the Senate or Congress. A sole will silences dissenting voices.” That almost sounds like Harry Reid talking about Bush.

Mussolini reviewed FDR’s book, Looking Forward, proclaiming the author a kindred spirit. The way Roosevelt “calls his readers to battle,” he wrote, “is reminiscent of the ways and means by which fascism awakened the Italian people.” “Without question,” he continued, the “sea change” in America “resembles that of fascism.” Indeed, the comparisons were so commonplace, Mussolini’s press office banned the practice. “It is not to be emphasized that Roosevelt’s policy is fascist because these comments are immediately cabled to the United States and are used by his foes to attack him.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/155781/putin-hitler-mussolini-other-fdr-fans/jonah-goldberg

Re:Albert Einstein, Helen Keller, Margaret Sanger, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36644428)

America had been through the worst era of unrestrained robber-baron capitalism, followed by the Great Depression.

Kind of like now, huh?

Wrongful death? (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#36644188)

So did Hemingway's estate ever sue the government for wrongful death or some such, after it was revealed that Hemingway's paranoia was justified and really not so paranoid after all?

Re:Wrongful death? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36644274)

So did Hemingway's estate ever sue the government for wrongful death or some such, after it was revealed that Hemingway's paranoia was justified and really not so paranoid after all?

Good God, this is the type of shit that pisses me off. The solution to every problem is to sue. How does suing the government do anyone any good, especially for someone holding the vast fortune that is Hemingway's estate? All it does is cost the government more money, which hurts the American people.

Perhaps the solution should be to limit the FBI's powers and get rid of the damn Patriot Act. This is yet another example that the FBI has always been out of control since its formation, and other declassified documents will show other instances of abuse. But let's not do anything to change that, someone needs to sue the government because that will do . . . NOTHING.

The FBI, CIA, and NSA all have their purposes but they also have way too much power. Until that power is curbed they are enemies to the general population.

Re:Wrongful death? (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#36644306)

You're presuming facts and intent not in evidence: the goal of a lawsuit does not have to be monetary compensation, and I never said anything to even imply that I expected that would be the estate's purpose in suing. I assumed they might have been seeking some sort of specific performance: a change in practices or behavior, not to mention a very public apology.

Perfect Quote (1)

am 2k (217885) | more than 2 years ago | (#36644252)

Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. - Colin Sautar

Anecdote (2)

paiute (550198) | more than 2 years ago | (#36644388)

While hunting one day with director Howard Hawks and William Faulkner, the acclaimed actor Clark Gable asked Faulkner to enumerate the five best authors of the day. "Ernest Hemingway, Willa Cather, Thomas Mann, John Dos Passos," Faulkner replied, "and myself." "Oh," Gable maliciously replied, "do you write for a living?" "Yes," Faulkner retorted, "and what do you do?"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...