Do you believe in Emerson's conviction that Americans sometimes fail to see the best of our own people and in their own best hours and in their own best thoughts?
Ever since 911 and wars we waged since then, terror reigned supreme. It has obscured our focus on what America really stands for to the world. Too many times, an indictment turns into a declaration of war between race, sex and whatever one can name it for the worst in us.
Today, this particular reflection is prompted by Temple Univ. Physics Dept. Chair, Dr. Xi xiaoxing being accused of 4 counts of wire fraud and notice of forfeiture in an indictment unsealed in eastern district court of Pennsylvania of US of A this Thursday.
After reading indictment, I simply can't see a strong case for prosecutors to prove that Dr. Xi is guilty as charged. That is not to say, I shouldn't cry out loud to ensure that US Constitution must be upheld to its highest standards since day one of the founding of this Republic and with necessary alliance of all good and natural even metaphysical forces as fast as physical law permits.
Dr. Xi was the chief investigator on this patent that belonged to his former employer Penn State University.
He was, in theory and all practicality one major principle physicist who discovered MgB2 superconductivity and published many papers on its possible applications.
After taking up responsibility as the chair of Physics Dept. at Temple University and Laura H. Carnell professor of Physics in 2009, he worked hard to equip his newly formed research group necessary resource to advance difficult yet promising technologies based on existing research in this exciting new field bubbling with new possibilities. Prof. Xi believed in maintaining international collaborations with leading scholars in his field across the globe.
What prosecutors are trying to do to ruin his career is treading on a very dangerous slope. My re-collection of this other case does not help to dispel my suspicion towards self-serving mandates from the government itself, top down and bottom up. In my humble opinion, to do what is right MUST be executed _after_ we know for good measure, _what_ is right, not the other way around, especially when government elects to prosecute selectively a subset of citizens whose motivation is unquestionably fashioned after many pioneering American heroes. National interest can only be built upon winning those pioneers loyalty rather than making them the enemy among the rest of US.
How do I discern if child isn't scientist in me sitting in the basement? And I've already known from my own experience, writing innocent emails CAN, without any due process, resulting in one being banned from public service within certain discretion sanctioned by jurisdiction noticeable or unnoticeable for at least a year now.
So what should we all start noticing what is right and what is NOT so right in our society?
After federal investigators were unable to prove these initial accusations, the government conducted a separate investigation and was ultimately only able to charge Lee with improper handling of restricted data, one of the original 59 indictment counts, to which he pleaded guilty as part of a plea settlement. In June 2006, Lee received $1.6 million from the federal government and five media organizations as part of a settlement of a civil suit he had filed against them for leaking his name to the press before any formal charges had been filed against him. Federal judge James A. Parker eventually apologized to Lee for denying him bail and putting him in solitary confinement, and excoriated the government for misconduct and misrepresentations to the court.
long article...looks interesting...
“There are two Socialisms.
One is communistic, the other solidaritarian.
One is dictatorial, the other libertarian.
One is metaphysical, the other positive.
One is dogmatic, the other scientific.
One is emotional, the other reflective.
One is destructive, the other constructive.
Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all.
One aims to establish happiness for all, the other to enable each to be happy in his own way.
The first regards the State as a society sui generis, of an especial essence, the product of a sort of divine right outside of and above all society, with special rights and able to exact special obediences; the second considers the State as an association like any other, generally managed worse than others.
The first proclaims the sovereignty of the State, the second recognizes no sort of sovereign.
One wishes all monopolies to be held by the State; the other wishes the abolition of all monopolies.
One wishes the governed class to become the governing class; the other wishes the disappearance of classes.
Both declare that the existing state of things cannot last.
The first considers revolutions as the indispensable agent of evolutions; the second teaches that repression alone turns evolutions into revolution.
The first has faith in a cataclysm.
The second knows that social progress will result from the free play of individual efforts.
Both understand that we are entering upon a new historic phase.
One wishes that there should be none but proletaires.
The other wishes that there should be no more proletaires.
The first wishes to take everything away from everybody.
The second wishes to leave each in possession of its own.
The one wishes to expropriate everybody.
The other wishes everybody to be a proprietor.
The first says: ‘Do as the government wishes.’
The second says: ‘Do as you wish yourself.’
The former threatens with despotism.
The latter promises liberty.
The former makes the citizen the subject of the State.
The latter makes the State the employee of the citizen.
One proclaims that labor pains will be necessary to the birth of a new world.
The other declares that real progress will not cause suffering to any one.
The first has confidence in social war.
The other believes only in the works of peace.
One aspires to command, to regulate, to legislate.
The other wishes to attain the minimum of command, of regulation, of legislation.
One would be followed by the most atrocious of reactions.
The other opens unlimited horizons to progress.
The first will fail; the other will succeed.
Both desire equality.
One by lowering heads that are too high.
The other by raising heads that are too low.
One sees equality under a common yoke.
The other will secure equality in complete liberty.
One is intolerant, the other tolerant.
One frightens, the other reassures.
The first wishes to instruct everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to instruct himself.
The first wishes to support everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to support himself.
The land to the State.
The mine to the State.
The tool to the State.
The product to the State.
The other says:
The land to the cultivator.
The mine to the miner.
The tool to the laborer.
The product to the producer.
There are only these two Socialisms.
One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.
One is already the past; the other is the future.
One will give place to the other.