Slashdot Mirror
Bobby Fischer Found
paulydavis writes "Former world chess champion Bobby Fischer, wanted since 1992 for playing a tournament in Yugoslavia despite U.N. sanctions, was detained in Japan for an apparent passport violation and will be deported to the United States."
Shouldn't there be some kind of rule against arresting somebody for violating a law that is no longer in effect?
Heck, Yugoslavia doesn't even EXIST anymore. It's kind of a moot point.
Please bid on this Karmann Ghia! Please pleas
And since when has public opinion about someone's views been a legitimate means of determining whether or not they should be punished for breaking the law? Did you miss that whole "freedom of speech" bit in the US constitution?
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
Any generalized racial hatred is always a bad thing, anti-semitism included. Let's not forget that popular mindset in Europe right now appears to be that "Zionist Isreal crushing Palestinians is a very bad thing," and, less formally, "The US rails against 'religious extremists' (Muslims) while a good number of their people (fundamentalist Christians) seem to be equally as extreme."
At least that's my take on it.
Pardon while I feed the troll...
and we understand that upper class tax cuts may provide a temporary "high" but will only lead to misery later on.
Document this, and I *might* believe it.
I don't know of a single person who doesn't want to keep more $$$ in their pocket. Those that make the most $$$ generally (not always, but generally) create jobs by doing one of two things:
1. Becoming a consumer. These people purchase things that have to be manufactured, or want services that can only be met by someone else.
2. Creating a business.
Creating jobs broadens the tax base. Where's the loss for your "big government" needs there?
EveryDNS. Use it. It works.
AC's need not reply
So, he's nuts, but did he kill anybody, how does this make him more dangerous than, say, some starving homeless guy with a knife ?
And his views on history are his, which mean I do not give a fuck about conspiracy theorists as well as their opponents...
Glorify him for what he is : a chess genius and do not publish things about what you think he doesn't do well enough.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
And the toss it in the bank to earn interest.
And the bank gets the money to pay the interest by loaning the money out.
And the money goes out in the form of business loans, home loans, car loans, personal loans, lines of credit and so forth.
The homes are bought and money goes out to various individuals related to that industry. And the cars are bought likewise. And the personal loans are taken out to pay for various things around the house or what not. And the lines of credit likewise.
And the business loans? The business loans pay for new equipment (which will operated by new employees) and new buildings (which will be occupied by new employees) and new employees, which will.. erm.. right.
Anyway, while I'm not convinced about trickle down theory myself, to simply stop and say "Well, they toss it in the bank and that's it" is a bit short sighted.
Unless Bill puts his money underneath his mattress, or buries it in the back yard, then the money is out in the economic system. And poor people tend to spend their money poorly, like lottery tickets, and another Dale Earnhardt commemorative plate, "I can't guarantee the plate will go up in value, but all the other ones have."
Whether we won a chess tournament shouldn't contribute to that; I admire chess as a game or sport, but it is hardly an indicator of the intellectual capacity of a nation.
...
what you and your american grandparent (post) are failing to understand, entirely, is that this is a conversation about propaganda, and ways in which fischer was used as a propagandist tool, in that era.
in such a realm, none of the bold, assertive, we-are-the-best american 'facts' you and your brethren spout forth, have -any- bearing whatsoever. propaganda is not a 'truth' realm, its not about whats real.
it amazes me today that americans -still- know nothing about propaganda, and fail to accomodate it continually in their dialectic views of anything that might be 'anti-american'.
whether or not america 'is the best' at anything, at the time of the fischer (propaganda) project, the fact is: general, popular culture, in realms all over the world, had a pretty dim view of american 'thuggery' and whether the holy american system really was any better than communism/socialism.
fischer was not just about soviet-era 'games' (which we all know americans will always, always win, at), it was also about softening peoples upset over such things as vietnam, korea, etc... remember kids: the cold war was certainly not just between the soviets and the capitalists.
propaganda. learn it, or suffer under its ever-dominant rule, its a religion holier even than The American Way
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Yes, the rest of the word sees us as loud, crass, and uncivil. It's not, however, because we have common sense or know-how.
(FWIW I'm an American, quite proudly)
Travel somewhere else in the world where Americans travel or vacation. Pick a quiet bench somewhere and just watch. It's quite easy to spot the Americans, generally. They're loud, crass, and uncivil. As a stereotype, they tend to expect and demand status in their new locale simply based on their classification as "American". "I'm an American," they boast loudly to anyone who will listen. The fact is, no one really cares. Of course we have a long list of accomplishments to be proud of - but it doesn't give us the right to disregard foriegn cultures or customs - particularly when we're IN that culture.
There's a reason the average American tourist gets treated poorly or at least indifferently in most countries - we don't make the effort to be sensitive to the environment we're in. There's a certain swagger Americans like to put on while travelling and it's quite insulting to the locals. We as a country get branded as loud-mouthed hicks, because those are the people that are most visible. If only more Americans would grab their own kind and say "Shut up, you're in someone else's country, be respectful," Americans would have a better reputation. It all comes down to respect. As Americans we're taught from day one that we're the superior, chosen country - and the weaker minded often try to remind the rest of the world of it too.
All it takes to change this perception is respect - respect your own country enough to make a good impression, and respect your hosts enough to play by their cultural rules. If you don't like their cultural rules, go back home.
-- "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
He's saying that people who play chess well need to be way smarter than people who play football well. Is playing football a more intellectual activity than say, tennis? Maybe, for certain positions.
But there are plenty of really stupid pro football players. I don't know any really stupid chess players.
Anyway, most sports are not really that intellectual at all - maybe in the COACHING aspect of it, and the analysis aspects (you can analyze snail movement if you'd like to, and do it in a way only smart people would be able to handle), but when you're PLAYING, it's performance is less "intellectual" than ingrained, trained responses.
Learning to play most sports is a matter of learning the rules of how to play (through coaching) along with practice to make following those rules natural. It's not intellectual, it's memorization.
You can't memorize all of chess - once you're a few moves in, you're going to have to figure out, right then, what the best move is.
paintball
He's not talking about trick down, he's talking about money growth through investment. If you invest 10 dollars, and there's a minimum hold of $1 for the bank, it can loan 9 back out. That 9 is deposited back in the bank, now they have to hold 90c and can loan 8.10 back out. The eventual effect is that the money grows VERY fast. Many more people have more money to work with, lots more investment and production.
You give it to the government, they spend it -- poorly on something that is HORRIBLE for the economy (like Unionized workers). Then it's done. In our society there seems to be some crazy notion that leaving your money sitting in the bank is going to stagnate our economy, which is only true if no investment is taking place at all. In truth the more money sitting in the bank (theoretically, government regulation can change this) the lower the interest rate is, and the more appealing it is to invest.
Ok, IANAE (I am not an economist),
Imagine that. A person without economic background trying to tell policy makers what to do.
but from what I understand the "trickle down effect" just doesn't work the way people want it to.
There isn't any thing related to "trickle down" going. Behind the rhetoric is something called Supply-Side economics". It's a serious topic that academics and policy wonks debate.
Giving them even more isn't going to
It's not "giving" them more. It's adjusting everyone's rate equally. For example, if the top rate was 25%, another rate 16%, and the bottom rate 12%, a 50% tax cut would mean that rates were 12.5%, 8%, and 6%. A person making 20,000 year taxed at the bottom rate would go from paying 2400 to 1200, a savings of $1200. A person making 150,000 would go from paying $37,500 to $18,750. That means in political rhetoric terms "The rich were given 94% of the tax cut with the poor only getting 6%" is completely accurate.
big an impact as doing the same to a poorer person.
See, now, that is just silly. If you are trying to get capital back into the marketplace, would you rather send back $1200, or $18,750?
Secondly, the rich still only make up a small percentage of the world's
Yes, but what you don't realize is that the rich pay the VAST majority of income taxes. The top 50% of income earners pay 96% of all income taxes paid. (link).
And lastly, the money spent by a rich person doesn't really trickle down to the needy
Can you trace the history of a rich person from point a to the pocket of poor person b? Of course not. It's a complex system that takes *years* to fall into place. Again, it is way more complicated than I think you can grasp in this situation. Additionally though, it was claimed that the "rich" were going trickle down to the poor.
When they buy up-market products, the money will very quickly "leave" the local area since it's likely to be imported (no matter where they live).
Wrong. The total value of goods and services consumed in the US is 10.40 trillion for last year (link). The trade deficit totals about $200B (link) a year. That means we import more than export. Even if you figure the rich will tend to import more than your average person, it is not reasonable to assume that most of their spending will go overseas.
The money goes to some company, and executive pay is almost universally improportionate to the worker's pay.
This is a major issue: productivity and profitiability are way up, but so far wages are flat. This however has nothing to do with "trickle down". What does happen however is that employment increases. Which is what we have seen. So far this year it is estimated that 1.4 million jobs have been created (link). That is significant.
tax cut for the poor would have made a much better and longer lasting impact to many more people
Here is the little dirty secret that people who don't know what is going on don't realize. The poor in this country pay very, very, very little income tax. If you are literally poor, as in impoverished, you not only don't pay any income tax, you get a refund for taxes you never paid. Yes, that's right. It's an "Earned income tax credit". A tax refund for taxes you never paid (link).
People could pay off debts, get a better education, spend more time with the kids, start a small business, etc.
> We had the impression that the Soviets were a
> bunch of automatons with no respect for human life
> that were just waiting to go war for any reason.
> How the Soviets were just dying to use chemical
> and/or nuclear weapons!
Substitute "Muslims" for "Soviets" and read today's propaganda. Plus ca change...
Heheheheh. Nice troll. Forbidden to have an innocent play? Of course he wasn't. He wasn't told that he couldn't play chess in that country, merely that he could not play in a sanctioned tournament in that country. It's a bit of a distinction. It sends a message, and please make no mistake: Bobby Fischer knew exactly what he was doing. He sent the message he wanted to send, and while you may think that the reaction was too harsh, please do not make it like all he wanted to do was play a friendly game of chess.
http://xkcd.com/386/
At some point along the way, I picked up this quote from a Slashdot post, that bears repeating (or at least paraphrasing -- and I wish I could tell you who said it):
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
I don't know. I would see anyone who participated in a formal tournament (supposedly representing the US) in a sanctioned country as supporting that country's actions. This is especially true when that person has been told that the US would not like to be represented. If China actually holds the Olympics, I would hope that the U.S. would boycott in protest of China's massive human rights violations. If they do not, I will see the US teams, and by extension the US government, as condoning that country's actions. If you allow countries that are human rights abusers to have the appearance of legitimacy, you give their actions that appearance. Thing is, he could have just gone over there and played however much chess he wanted to with the people. He could have declared his support of that government's actions. That was not forbidden to him. It was only playing in a sanctioned tournament, where he would be representing the US, that was off-limits. Appearance is key here, as he would not actually represent the US's official stance, but would have that appearance to the rest of the world. This is quite simply because he is an American, and the tournament sanctioned. I think that US citizens should be allowed to travel to Cuba legally, for example, however I would not support the US putting a team in a sanctioned event there. I realize it's a fine distinction, but it is there.
http://xkcd.com/386/